| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Uncle Sam Abroad
Author: Conner, J. E.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Uncle Sam Abroad" ***
Transcriber Notes
Obvious typos corrected. Inconsistencies in punctuation kept as in
original.
Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation made consistent, e.g.: handbook,
shipboard, to-day, chargé(s) d’affaires.
Spelling of Quebec and Colombia made consistent, but otherwise
spellings of city and country names left as printed in the original.
Unclear name suffix in the original was confirmed as Jacob Meyer Jr.
elsewhere.
Page number in Table of Contents for Lecture III—Consular
Service—Duties changed to 83 to match actual start of chapter.
The Diplomatic Service and Consular Service tables in the Appendix have
footnotes that are referenced in multiple entries across the original
pages in the text. Rather than retain multiple footnotes with
identical content, multiple anchors in the text may refer to a single
note.
P. 208 in the original indicates a footnote * that has no corresponding
anchor on that page, so it does not appear here.
The column headers with vertical text in the Synopsis of Commercial
Treaties table on pp. 212-213 have been moved to a Key.
The Synopsis of Commercial Treaties table uses Unicode characters
dagger (U+2020) and double dagger (U+2021). If the device font does
not support these characters, † and ‡, they may not appear correctly.
Indent of Lethbridge, Alberta in table on p. 226 made to match
surrounding entries since it falls in alphabetical order of those.
If the device allows, some full page images can be clicked on to view a
larger version.
Italic text indicated by underscores surrounding _italic text_.
Small capitals have been converted to ALL CAPS.
Some descriptions of illustrations have been added.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNCLE SAM ABROAD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: Frontispiece - Uncle Sam carrying suitcase]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncle Sam
Abroad
By J. E. Conner
_Illustrated by
Clyde J. Newman_
[Illustration: * E * PLURIBUS * UNUM * U S]
Chicago and New York
Rand, McNally & Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright, 1900, by J. E. Conner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS.
The Professor Has an Idea Page 7
Lecture I—The State Department 11
Lecture II—Consular Service—Officers 43
Lecture III—Consular Service—Duties 83
Lecture IV—Diplomatic Service 121
Lecture V—Uncle Sam and Expansion 159
Appendix 197
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: Uncle Sam profile]
UNCLE SAM ABROAD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: Profile of man]
The Professor
Has
An Idea.
It is the opinion of Professor Loyal of the University of ---- that the
average American, to put it bluntly, knows little or nothing about Uncle
Sam’s foreign service.
He is also of the opinion that the time is at hand when the aforesaid
average American _must_ know more about it, owing to the growth in
importance of our foreign relations, both politically and commercially.
Now if the good Professor could only work miracles he would take the dry
details which he has in mind upon this subject, and make them as
interesting as fiction. Instead, however, he chose a method to which he
was more accustomed, the “university extension” plan, aiming primarily
to stimulate interest in his subject, and secondarily, in some small
measure to gratify it.
The reader is indebted to the notes of a shorthand reporter who happened
to hear the entire course, both for the text here given and for the
illustrations with which it is adorned. If he thinks that the latter are
not always in harmony with the text he must remember that the Professor
and the Scribe did not see things from the same standpoint. Moreover he
must not hold the Professor too strictly to account for his language,
for it is not to be wondered at if he occasionally forgets himself and
uses large words, which might be considered out of place in a popular
lecture; and again, in his effort to impart life and present-day
interest to his subject he at times introduces a levity which he hopes
will not too seriously offend the sober-minded, or make them distrust
his statements of fact.
On the evening of the first lecture the speaker, having been presented
with the usual complimentary remarks, first spoke briefly in explanation
of the nature of the course and of such courses in general. He mentioned
among other matters that syllabi or leaflets containing outlines of the
lectures, together with copies of the “Diplomatic and Consular
Register,” would be distributed to all in attendance. He also announced
that opportunity would be given at the close of each lecture for
questions from the audience, and he promised to attempt to answer the
same. Then he turned to the subject of the evening.
[Illustration:
THE STATE DEPARTMENT.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: The Scribe]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: Man standing next to table with pitcher and glass]
LECTURE I
THE STATE DEPARTMENT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:
What is the attitude of Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia or the
United States upon this or that question?
Such a query you often hear, and perhaps you stop to wonder how it is
when the collective opinion of any one country cannot be known in a
short time, that there can be such a thing as a German attitude, an
English or an American attitude, or who has a right to determine upon
this or that as our attitude.
Well, it is evident that in domestic affairs, that is to say in national
affairs, we as a people can take time to deliberate and choose our path;
and it is just as evident that in international affairs we cannot always
do so. “It is the unexpected that happens”, and we must have some means
of meeting emergencies that will not wait. Hence a free people is least
free, theoretically, when it has to do with the claims of treaties and
international law, for it cannot take time to consider and decide upon
all the facts; nay, even legislatures may interfere seriously with the
proper discharge of such duties; so that in actual practice, even the
most democratic nations have found it best to entrust the management of
foreign affairs, or in other words, the preservation of their national
equilibrium, to a Premier, Chancellor or Foreign Secretary, who is
generally the ablest statesman that the country can afford.
This officer, with slightly differing functions, is known in our country
as the Secretary of State, and he presides over the State Department.
Probably there is no office under our Constitution that requires greater
sagacity, greater breadth of intellectual grasp and practical training
than this one of Secretary of State, and the fact that it has been held
by such men as Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, James Madison, James
Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun,
William H. Seward and James G. Blaine is sufficient evidence of its
importance.
It was intended at first that the cabinet officers should be as nearly
equal as possible, and the salaries were fixed and remain the same to
this day; but in the nature of the case they could not remain of equal
importance, for the Department of State is more intimately associated
with the President than any other. Washington would not allow foreign
ministers to address him—they must reach him properly through the State
Department,—hence, if for no other reason, it is easy to see how the
Secretary of State assumed an official dignity that does not belong to
the other cabinet officers.
Let us see how he stands related to the general government. Suppose we
assume the attitude of an intelligent foreigner, looking at the “Great
Republic” from the outside, and trying to discover into whose hands the
logical working out of the Constitution has placed the real power.
It has been said[1] that we will at length discover that in all ordinary
times of peace the government is practically in the hands of six men,
namely,—
the President and two men whom he appoints—
the Secretary of State, and
the Secretary of the Treasury;
the Speaker and two men whom he appoints—
the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, and
the Chairman of the Committee of Appropriations.
Of these six, one-half are concerned with the finances of the
government; and of the other half, one is the Chief Executive, another
may be called the chief legislative factor, while the third is our
official representative to the rest of the world. This practical
division of the functions of government does not seem to agree very well
with the more theoretical division into legislative, executive and
judicial. In other words, finance has assumed an importance it was not
intended to have, just as was observed concerning the Secretary of
State.
Footnote 1:
See “American Diplomacy,” by Eugene Schuyler.
* * * * *
It may seem rather strange to speak of one of our officials as the chief
_social_ functionary in our governmental machinery, but we have such a
one, and he is no other than the Secretary of State. The office of
functionary host for the government might be supposed to belong
naturally to the President, who is spared this duty, however, owing to
the multiplicity of others that are unavoidable. Consequently the
Secretary of State, because of the breadth of the field of his
operations, bringing him into touch with representatives of other
nations as well as the principal statesmen of our own, and because,
moreover, diplomacy’s natural atmosphere has always been that of
society, must “keep open house”, as it were, for the Republic. This
alone would be a sufficient burden for any one man, but it is expected
that the Assistant Secretaries of State shall share it with him. Thus
our Secretary maintains the only semblance of a court that will be
tolerated by our “fierce democracie”, and even for this we do not
contribute a cent of support, though around it and through it operate
vast interests, both national and international. It is a manifest
injustice to these officials that we do not provide for such legitimate
expenses as must necessarily occur on these semi-official, semi-social
occasions.
* * * * *
Now let us see what is the scope of the State Department, for it is much
more than a foreign office, though that is its principle function. It
embraces the duties which in other countries are given to the Keeper of
the Seal, the Minister of Justice, etc., such as—
(1) keeping, promulgating and publishing the laws,
(2) custody of the Great Seal,
(3) preservation of the Government Archives, and
(4) charge of all official relations between the general Government
and the several States.
Its scope is more particularly indicated by the bureaus into which it is
divided, namely,—
the Bureau of Indexes and Archives;
the Bureau of Accounts of the State Department;
the Bureau of Rolls and Library;
the Bureau of Appointments;
the Bureau of Statistics, or Foreign Commerce;
the Consular Bureau;
the Diplomatic Bureau.
Each of these bureaus is presided over by a chief, and at the head of
them all is the chief clerk, who is “the executive officer of the
Department of State under the direction of the Secretary.”
* * * * *
The Bureau of Indexes and Archives is a sort of postoffice and
recorder’s office combined, for it receives the incoming mail, opens it
and classifies it as either diplomatic, consular or miscellaneous, then
indexes it so that if necessary it can be readily traced, and then turns
over to the Chief Clerk the diplomatic correspondence and the more
important consular and miscellaneous correspondence. This the Chief
Clerk reads, and the most important is submitted to the Assistant
Secretaries of State, while the remainder is turned over to the various
bureaus for their attention. Likewise after the Secretary and his
Assistants have signified the replies which are to be made to the most
important of the mail and have examined and signed the same, it is
collected from all the bureaus, and the out-going mail is indexed in
another set of books.
* * * * *
The Bureau of Accounts of the State Department classifies its business
as follows:
(1) International indemnities, or trust funds. If you are an American
citizen living abroad and suffer a loss of property unlawfully, you may
expect the loss to be made good through this Bureau of Accounts; that is
unless you happen to be a missionary, for Uncle Sam doesn’t always
extend, or try to extend, to missionaries the same protection that is
enjoyed by other citizens living abroad.
(2) Diplomatic and consular accounts, i. e., the salaries paid to these
officers, together with all expenses incidental to the service.
(3) Accounts of the Department proper.
(4) Passports. If you wish to secure passports before going abroad, it
must be done through the State Department, as they are issued nowhere
else in the United States.
The telegraphic correspondence of the State Department, mostly in
cipher, is conducted by this bureau.
* * * * *
The Bureau of Rolls and Library has the custody of the laws and treaties
of the United States, together with the Revolutionary archives, etc. Its
chief business is the “publication of the laws, treaties, proclamations
and executive orders, work which must be performed with the utmost
attainable promptness, speed and accuracy”, and its busy time is just
after the adjournment of Congress. It is this Bureau that is honored
with the custody of the original draft of the Declaration of
Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the
United States. It also has charge of the following:
The records and papers of the Continental Congress,
The Washington papers,
The Madison papers,
The Jefferson papers,
The Hamilton papers,
The Monroe papers,
The Franklin papers,
The papers of the Quartermaster General’s Department during the
Revolutionary period.
* * * * *
The Bureau of Appointments receives applications and recommendations for
office. It issues commissions, exequaturs and warrants of
extradition—terms to be explained in connection with the consular
service.
It also has charge of the Great Seal of the United States, a symbol of
authority which has been carefully guarded by one faithful man for
nearly fifty-three years.
* * * * *
The Bureau of Statistics, or of Foreign Commerce as it is now called,
takes charge of the data gathered all over the world by the consular
service. Whatever is of immediate importance is published without delay
in the “Advance Sheets” of the Consular Reports, and these are
distributed to boards of trade, the press and elsewhere. This prompt
distribution of valuable information was begun in January, 1898, and
since that time the American system of Consular Reports is freely
acknowledged the best in the world.
* * * * *
The Consular Bureau is charged with correspondence with the consular
service. The variety of this correspondence cannot be guessed by those
unfamiliar with the Consular Reports, but its extent may be inferred
from the fact that out of 1,000 officers in this service, perhaps half
of them correspond with the Department. In addition to the above, this
bureau has much to do by way of interview with consular officers coming
and going. Moreover, this bureau has charge of examinations of
applicants, and after a candidate is appointed it furnishes the
particular instructions for the position in view. This Bureau must keep
itself informed as to the personnel of the service, and must even send
inspectors to the various consulates and report thereupon. “Recently”,
we are told, “the Chief of the Bureau personally visited over one
hundred consulates in Cuba, Mexico, Canada, Europe, India, China, and
Japan”.
* * * * *
Last and most important of all, politically, is the Diplomatic Bureau.
Its dealings are with our own diplomatic officials at foreign capitals,
and with foreign diplomats at Washington. It is chiefly concerned, as we
are told, with the “examination, consideration and discussion of
diplomatic subjects, such as treaties, claims, questions of
international law, and policy, etc.”
So this last sentence is the only tantalizing peep we are allowed to
have within the sanctuary of the State Department. This Bureau with
which the Secretary and his three Assistants are chiefly concerned
shares its secrets with very few. The expediency of observing secrecy in
international politics was noticed before; but there is another side to
the question which most of us see and perhaps some of us talk about, and
that is the point in negotiations at which the government may take the
public into its confidence.
For the public feels, and has a right to feel, that it has a proprietary
interest in public affairs. More than this, it is in an unhealthy state
when it doesn’t feel such an interest. The public, at least the
enlightened public, knows that secrecy is apt to be troublesome
anywhere, especially in government. It knows of many a historic instance
of corruption fostered by secrecy, of intrigue, cabal, plot and
counterplot, until the whole fabric of the state became vitiated. The
public,—that is, the American public,—may have some reason to dread
secrecy in local government, for many an alderman wants nothing better
than to be let alone, and many a “convention boss” with a few “ring”
associates would prefer to “fix the ticket” without any inspection by
the public whom he expects in a few days to browbeat into supporting it.
Granting that we haven’t been watchful enough as to local politics, how
is it nationally? How about the Department of State—for that alone is
the place where secrecy is justifiable?
It was said by an authority on American diplomacy about fifteen years
ago that “there is scarcely a country, even Russia or Germany, where so
little is known by the public of the negotiations carried on at any one
time by the Secretary of State”. What did this indicate? the efficiency
of our government as a negotiating machine? Did it indicate an
indifference of our people to their welfare? Well, however it may have
been at that time, it is certain that there has been a growing and
insistent demand during the present decade that negotiations shall be
revealed at the earliest possible moment. Public opinion has even been
known to dictate foreign policy—nay, more, to reverse it after it had
once been determined upon by the State Department, as in the case of the
notorious “Queen Lil”. Indeed, this instance in our diplomatic history
shows very satisfactorily that no administration can stand or ought to
stand against the overwhelming volume of enlightened public opinion
raised against an unpopular measure or a distrusted service. The public
is bound to know whenever it can, and when it can not it is bound to
guess, and its guessing may be more disturbing to foreign negotiations
than a knowledge of the facts. Thus, while it may not always be able to
determine the course of negotiations, it is always in its power to
seriously affect them and ultimately to overthrow them.
But such cases as that of the Hawaiian queen are rare, and the American
public fortunately has seldom had reason to apprehend that state affairs
were being grossly mismanaged. Perhaps, on the other hand, it has needed
at times to be cautioned against over-insistence upon its right to
news—a vulgar itching for a sensational stimulant. Perhaps it has needed
the reminder that it “had its say”, directly or indirectly, in the
choice of officers, and that having chosen them, it should, as a rule,
reserve criticism until election time returns; for between an eternal
“nagging” of public officials and a profound indifference to public
affairs there isn’t much to choose. The New England town-meeting has
often been justly commended for cultivating an interest in public
affairs; but, on the other hand, it frequently sets up its select-men
merely to be targets of abuse. No nation and no community can have, or
deserves to have, the best possible government when its officials are
subjected to a perpetual cross fire of criticism.
The Secretary of State should have as free a hand as possible in the
great game of world politics, for the state being a gigantic business
firm, must, like all such firms, keep its business to itself.
It has long been a standing objection to federal governments such as
ours that they are “weak in the conduct of foreign affairs”, the
imputation being that they are weak because the Secretary of State lacks
the initiative afforded by a more centralized government. But, as a
matter of fact, the same official in England, France, Italy, or Spain,
is more likely to be called upon for the progress of foreign
negotiations than in our own country.
But the Constitution does not grant the Secretary, that is to say, the
Executive, entire freedom in foreign affairs, for it explicitly states
that “_the President shall have power, by and with the consent and
advice of the Senate_, to make treaties ... to appoint ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls,” etc. However, this restraint is not
always irksome, and it may sometimes prove salutary. It is always a
measure of assurance to the people that the administration will not
commit the government to an unwise policy; and more than this, it is an
assurance to a power with which we may be dealing that the result of the
negotiations is not likely to be repudiated by the people when the chief
executive is backed by the legislature.
The Senate entrusts its diplomatic functions, except in the ratification
of treaties and the approval of the appointments of ambassadors, to its
Committee on Foreign Affairs. This Committee leaves the initiative in
diplomacy to the State Department, taking care, nevertheless, to keep
track of any negotiations that may be pending. Whenever the Senate
wishes to know the progress of negotiations it passes resolutions
calling for them, the Chief Clerk of the Department gets them ready, and
the Senate then meets in closed session during their consideration. Thus
diplomatic business is fairly well guarded and at the same time a
reassuring degree of legislative oversight is maintained. To be sure, we
hear more or less criticism of Senate control, which in the nature of
the case must mean a sacrifice of expediency, yet it remains to be seen
whether or not our system is too cumbersome for prompt, prudent and
adroit statesmanship when brought into closer rivalry with Europe.
For there is no doubt that for good or for ill we are entering upon a
degree of activity in world politics such as we have never known
heretofore. Consequently it becomes a matter of the highest necessity
that our whole diplomatic machinery be in a condition to afford the
greatest utility. Diplomacy in these modern times is said to be the art
of maintaining peace; but it sometimes implies a rivalry, nevertheless,
which is far from pacific. We should remember, therefore, that European
diplomats have behind them the advantage of many years of study of their
great problems from their own standpoint and the judgment of men of the
greatest sagacity upon intricacies of long standing, and that most of
them have governments more centralized than our own. It means a great
deal to be able to quote in support of a position the weight of an
authority like Metternich, Cavour, Bismarck, Gortschakoff, Richelieu,
Grotius or Canning. But if anyone thinks that America is putting herself
in a fair way to be worsted in this greatest of fields of intellectual
battle, let him read the history of American diplomacy and let him study
the part she has recently played in the world drama. If he thinks she is
taking this greater part without adequate prestige, let him but observe
the flattering attention she is now receiving, the coquetry for her
favor and the dread of her rivalry to be observed in every quarter.
The State Department, therefore, may be expected to meet its new
obligation successfully, provided it is allowed to act without too much
interruption by people or legislature, and provided that the same wise
discretion is observed in the choice of its chief officer that has
usually been exercised.
* * * * *
It may not be out of place to mention here another provision which lies
outside of the province of the State Department but affects its
usefulness, nevertheless. A well-known case which occurred in Louisiana
a few years ago, illustrates the point. A number of Italians, members of
a band called the Mafia, were killed by a mob, and as a consequence loud
complaints came from the Italian people, and many bitter criticisms were
urged against a government which must needs leave the administration of
justice for aliens within its borders to any locality where prejudice
was evidently high. Our government could only give assurances of a
satisfactory settlement of the matter; but it was humiliating to feel
the powerlessness of the United States to take the administration of
justice in a case involving foreigners out of the hands of the State of
Louisiana and into its own. Such cases have happened more than once in
our history, and the fact that they are liable to occur at any time is a
standing menace to our peace, and will be so until the proper
legislation is enacted. This is an acknowledged weakness in our
government, a source of annoyance and humiliation to every patriotic
American, and of embarrassment to the State Department. One cannot do
better in view of such a defect and our comparative indifference to it,
than to quote the warning comment of James Bryce: “As it is, that which
might prove to a European nation a mortal disease is here nothing worse
than a teasing ailment. This is why Americans submit, not merely
patiently but hopefully, to the defects of their government. The vessel
may not be any better built or formed or rigged than are those which
carry the fortunes of the great nations of Europe. She is certainly not
better navigated. But for the present at least,—it may not always be
so,—she sails upon a summer sea.”
* * * * *
We have been considering the State Department thus far with respect to
its relation to the general government, its chief officer, its division
into the various bureaus and some general remarks upon its most
distinctive feature, the Diplomatic Bureau. There remain several minor
topics to be briefly presented, leaving until the next lecture the
method of choosing men for the consular and diplomatic service, a
subject which might profitably be considered here.
The Department has varied in its scope somewhat from time to time, now
enlarging its domain as the country grew, and greater needs developed,
and now surrendering some of its functions to other departments, mainly
the Department of the Interior. It was first known before the outbreak
of the Revolution as the “Committee of Secret Correspondence”, with
Benjamin Franklin at its head. Next it was known (1777) as the
“Committee for Foreign Affairs”, and its first Secretary, Thomas Paine,
was dismissed for making an official matter public. Next (1789) it was
known as the Department for Foreign Affairs, and finally as the
Department of State, with Thomas Jefferson as the Secretary. The Patent
Office originated under this Department, but in 1849, when the
Department of the Interior was organized, it was formally transferred to
that department. In the same way the Census Bureau was transferred to
the Department of the Interior in 1850. Likewise, until the organization
of the Department of the Interior, the affairs of the Territories
remained under the Department of State.
One important functionary not mentioned among the bureaus is the
Solicitor. This officer is detailed from the Department of Justice to
“examine claims by or against foreign governments” and to advise upon
points of international law involved in treaties, protocols, etc. The
Solicitor is not subject, in the discharge of his duties, to the
direction of the Attorney General.
Besides the regular business of this department, and in addition to the
work of the Diplomatic Service, there are a number of bureaus and
foreign commissions appointed for purposes more or less temporary, many
of which require diplomatic ability of the highest order and others
technical skill and knowledge. There are at present under commission the
following:
(1) Bureau of the American Republics, with a Director, a Secretary, five
translators, an Editor of the Monthly Bulletin, a Chief Clerk and a
Chief of the Division of Information.
(2) Intercontinental Railway Commission, four members.
(3) United States and Mexican Water Boundary Commission, three American
and three Mexican members.
(4) Nicaragua Canal Commission, three members.
(5) Commission to the Paris Exposition of 1900, three members.
(6) Reciprocity Commission, a special Commissioner, a Secretary, an
Assistant Secretary and a Messenger.
(7) Consular Board of Examiners, under Executive Order of Sept. 20,
1895, three members.
(8) Joint High Commission, six members besides a Secretary and a
Messenger.
(9) International Tribunal of Egypt, three members.
(10) Dispatch Agents, three; at New York, San Francisco and London,
England, respectively.
* * * * *
Such, then, is the State Department to-day. Is it likely to assume a
greater importance in the future? That may well be, for though it may
lose still other functions besides those it has already parted with,
there will always remain the one characteristic class of business known
as foreign relations, and this seems likely to increase in volume and
interest. It is possible that it may yet become the department through
which the influence of the Executive shall reach the dependencies, when
the necessity for military occupation shall have gone by.
Now, before throwing the subject open for discussion, I wish to refer
you for further information to the publications with which the State
Department has kindly furnished me and from which I have gathered most
of the data that I have given you. Among the most interesting and
instructive of its publications are the “Historical Papers”, previously
mentioned, its works on “international law, diplomacy, and the laws of
foreign nations”, the “Consular Regulations”, “Consular Reports” and
various editions of “State Papers”, “Messages and Documents” and the
“Report of the Committee on the Conduct of Business in the Executive
Departments”. The subject is now open for question or discussion.
* * * * *
After some moments’ silence the Professor remarked—“I should have said
at the proper time that there is a House Committee for Foreign Affairs,
as well as a Senate Committee. However, it has no diplomatic
functions—it merely serves as an auditing committee.”
Q. “How much does the Secretary of State get a year?”
A. “$8,000. It was once raised to $10,000 and the very next year it was
reduced to $8,000.”
Q. “And on that salary he ‘keeps open house’, as you say, for the
Republic?”
“Just so.”
“Humph!”
“But, Professor”, said a wise-looking man near the platform, “I suppose
you think it is good policy to stick to our traditional simplicity?
What’s the use of so much entertaining? Is that a necessary part of
government?”
“Well”, said the Professor, “I would say that our traditional
simplicity is all right as an ideal, provided we don’t make a religion
out of it. Hospitality is also a good ideal to keep before the
people,—international courtesy, if you please,—and perhaps there is as
much virtue in the one as in the other. At any rate, if there were no
other reason, no self-respecting nation would allow its
representatives abroad to receive every courtesy and not make an equal
endeavor to return the courtesy. Now, entertaining costs money, and
there is no government appropriation for any such purpose, thanks to
our democratic ideals, and as was shown before, the burden of it falls
on the Secretary of State, which is unjust; for it is well known that
the salaries we pay our national officers are ridiculously small when
compared with those of other nations. Some measures should be taken,
apparently, to meet this legitimate expenditure. Have I answered your
question?”
“Yes, but I think just the same as I did before.”
“Exactly.”
“Professor,” said another man, “you have spoken of the Secretary of
State as if he were responsible for our foreign policy; but do you not
mean that the President is responsible?”
“The Secretary is responsible to the President and the President to the
people”, said the Professor; “that is to say, the Secretary is
responsible potentially and the President officially. If they were to
differ in opinion, why, of course, that of the President would prevail.”
“Do you not think that our Secretary of State should be elected by
Congress, in some such way as the Premier and Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs is elected in England?”
“No, not by any means. Foreign affairs belong essentially to the
executive, not the legislative branch of government. France, in my
opinion, is particularly unfortunate in that its Foreign Secretary is
chosen by the President and the Premier, but is responsible to the
legislature. In Germany, according to the constitution, ‘the Emperor
represents the Empire internationally’. He can even ‘declare war if it
is defensive, make peace, enter into treaties with other nations, and
appoint and receive ambassadors’. Hence, you see, as between Germany and
the rest of the world, the Kaiser can almost say, ‘I am the State’;
which, if the Kaiser is infallible, is a very fine thing. But to return
to your question, it is not quite exact to say that in Great Britain the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is elected by and responsible to
Parliament. He is not always the Premier as he is at present; besides,
you must remember that with us the Cabinet is an advisory board to the
executive, while in Great Britain, the Cabinet virtually _is_ the
executive. Hence, no good analogy can be drawn.”
“Do I understand, Professor, that in your opinion, our system compares
favorably with the corresponding systems of other countries?”
“That is certainly my opinion. The Senate oversight—the only feature
that is severely criticized—may at times be troublesome and costly, but
it is a valuable check and can not be dispensed with safely. After all,
the great advantage enjoyed by American diplomacy is that we are more
able than any other nation to act the part of the umpire, or peacemaker.
This follows not only from our geographical position, but from the fact
that at the very beginning we were free to choose advanced ethical
positions because we were not tied to precedents.”
As there seemed to be no further questions, the audience was dismissed.
[Illustration: Man gestures as pieces of paper fly in the air towards
student with head on desk]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: Portrait of man]
LECTURE
II
THE CONSULAR SERVICE—OFFICERS.
I shall speak more particularly this evening, said the Professor, upon
facts associated with the persons employed in the consular service; the
selection, preparation and such other matter as may be of interest,
leaving the duties of the service until the next lecture. Of course,
this division is arbitrary, and is adopted merely as a matter of
convenience. The data which I shall adduce may be found for the most
part in the “Consular Regulations”, which anyone may purchase from the
Superintendent of Documents in Washington.
The Consular Service, as was said before, makes a small army of about
1,000 men. These men are chosen from all parts of the United States
(aside from the foreigners in the service), and are sent to all parts of
the world. They are above all things else, agents of trade—messengers of
commerce. Yet they stand in so many relations to our government and
people that it is doubtful if any other position in our modern
civilization calls into service a greater versatility—a wider exercise
of intellectual capacity.
We shall consider the method by which these officers are chosen, then
some reforms in that method which should have been adopted long ago, and
which, it is hoped, we shall soon see in operation. But before
describing these methods and reforms, let us notice briefly the _grade_,
_rank_ and _classification_ of the service, likewise the definition of a
few technical terms, in order that we may know exactly what we are
talking about.
There are three principal grades in the consular service, namely:
(1) Consul General.
(2) Consul.
(3) Commercial Agent.
These three are “full, principal and permanent consular officers as
distinguished from subordinates and substitutes”. These latter include
Vice Consuls General, Deputy Consuls General, Vice Consuls, Deputy
Consuls, Vice Commercial Agents, Consular Agents, Consular Clerks,
Interpreters, Marshals and Clerks at Consulate.
The term consul, as applied to the second grade, has also a common,
generic meaning, including every consular officer, and it is in the
latter sense that we shall generally use it.
In the same way the word consulate seems to waver in meaning, sometimes
covering the entire region over which a consul has jurisdiction, i. e.,
the consular district, and sometimes implying only the official
residence—the room or building in which the consul does business. The
boundaries of the consulate—using the term in its broadest sense—are
prescribed by the President, and are usually defined in the consul’s
commission. The general rule is that all places nearer to the official
residence than to any other consulate within the same country are to be
included in a consulate just forming. These boundaries in most cases
have long since been determined.
Now as to the difference in power between these three principal grades
there is little to say, for there is very little difference except that
of grade. Their functions as consuls are quite the same. The only
difference is that the Consul General, except in three cases, Calcutta,
Dresden and Mexico, has limited supervision over consuls within his
jurisdiction. This supervision is confined to such as “can be exercised
by correspondence” and is intended to insure that the Consular
Regulations are complied with and the Consular Reports prepared for the
State Department. The Consuls General are “in no sense auditing
officers”.
A Consulate General usually includes all the consulates within any one
country, though in a large or important country there may be several
consulates general. In some cases also there are no Consuls General
whatever, and the Consuls are then subordinated to the Diplomatic
Service.
The Commercial Agent is simply a consul of a lower grade and under
another name. The title is quite unfortunately chosen, especially since
the same term is used in other countries to designate an officer quite
inferior in rank and privileges.
As to subordinate officers and substitutes, a word may be said in
passing.
Vice Consuls General, Vice Consuls and Vice Commercial Agents are just
what might be inferred from their titles—appointees to take the place of
their principals whenever the latter are absent.
The deputy officers, on the other hand, may discharge the duties of
their superiors while the latter are at their posts, though they may
never “assume the responsible charge of the office”.
Consular Agents represent their principals in places throughout the
consulate where the latter do not reside; but their functions are
limited. In certain cases citizens of the country may be appointed to
this office.
As to Consular Clerks, the President is authorized to appoint as many as
thirteen who may be assigned to duty as the Secretary of State may
choose. They may not be removed from office “except for cause, stated in
writing, which shall be submitted to Congress”. This is a peculiar freak
of legislation, but it has some valuable suggestions.
Interpreters are stationed only at certain consulates in China, Japan,
Korea, the Turkish domains, and Zanzibar. They are usually natives of
the country. Marshals are appointed only for certain consular courts in
the less civilized countries.
Lastly Clerks at Consulates are such as attend to the routine clerical
work of the office.
For all these subordinate positions it is recommended that American
citizens be employed whenever possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Showing
Off
See page 50
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RANK.
Since a consular officer generally holds office such a short time, one
would not expect him to rank with Navy and Army officers, but such is
the case. Here are the equivalents in rank:
Consuls General
rank with
Commodores in the Navy or
Brigadier Generals in the Army.
Consuls and
Commercial Agents
rank with
Captains in the Navy or
Colonels in the Army.
Vice Consular officers,
Deputy Consular officers,
Consular Clerks and
Consular Agents
rank with
Lieutenants in the Navy or
Captains in the Army.
It is an event of some consequence when a United States naval squadron,
or even a lone cruiser, enters a foreign port where an American consular
officer is stationed; for the time to “put on airs” and “show off”, if
you ever do such things, is when you are away from home. On such an
occasion a commander of a squadron sends an officer ashore to visit the
consular officer and to invite him on board the flag-ship. Or, in case
it is but a single war-vessel, the commander thereof first goes ashore,
visits the consul and invites him on board. In either case the consul
accepts the invitation, as in duty bound, goes on board and “tenders his
official services to the commander”. Usually upon his return to the
shore a salute is fired in his honor—nine guns if a consul general,
seven if a consul or five if a commercial agent. While it is being fired
he faces the vessel and at the end of the salute lifts his hat in token
of acknowledgment and the formalities are over.
Consular officers are expected to advance the interests of the Navy
socially and otherwise whenever they can do so without expense to the
Government. One cannot but smile at the frequency with which these words
or their equivalent occur throughout the “Regulations”.
CLASSIFICATION.
Thus far we have considered the grade and the rank of consular officers.
Turning now to classification, we find that it is merely a matter of
convenience to the State Department—an arrangement according to salary.
Again there are three classes, or schedules, namely:
(1) Schedule B. This includes 38 consuls general, 196 consuls and 10
commercial agents. It embraces all those who “receive a fixed salary and
are not allowed to transact (private) business”. These, of course,
occupy the more responsible positions and receive the highest salaries,
ranging from $5,000 down.
(2) Schedule C. This includes only 10 consuls. It embraces those who
“receive a fixed salary and are allowed to transact (private) business”.
The salaries of these ten consuls are lower than those in the first
schedule, but they may make it up if they can by going into business for
themselves.
(3) The third schedule (which apparently ought to be D), comprises all
others who receive no salary, but who are allowed to retain the fees of
their respective offices and to engage in business. Of these there are
48 consuls and 20 commercial agents.
SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF CONSULAR OFFICERS.
The time has been when our consular service was simply a plaything for
politicians, and the diplomatic service was not essentially different.
The improvement has been very slow for the reason that it has been at
the mercy of Congress for the annual appropriation which enables it to
live, and to politicians everywhere for the frequent changes in its
personnel. Or to go farther back for causes, its improvement has been
delayed because the people have had more interest in the home market
than in the foreign market. When our merchants send bales of advertising
matter printed in English to a country where English is unknown, what
can you expect of our people?
But there has been some improvement; so that notwithstanding the present
weaknesses of the system there are some reasons for congratulation that
it is as good as it is. There was an executive order issued in
September, 1895, which recognized the justice of some of the complaints
made against the service and provided for some measures of reform. Among
these we notice that consulates or commercial agencies paying between
$1,000 and $2,500 per year shall be filled in one of three ways—
(1) “By transfer or promotion from some other position under the
Department of State of a character tending to qualify the incumbent for
the position to be filled.”
This enables the Department to be something of a training school for the
service, in a small way.
(2) “By appointment of some one not under the Department of State, but
having served thereunder to its satisfaction in a capacity tending to
qualify him for the position to be filled”.
This gives second preference to those who may have been discharged for
political reasons.
(3) “By the appointment of a person who, having furnished the customary
evidence of character, responsibility and capacity, and being thereupon
selected by the President for examination, is found upon such
examination to be qualified for the position.”
The order of preference given above seems to be very judicious and
thoroughly in harmony with the spirit of civil service reform. The
President further stated that “a vacancy in a consulate will be filled
at discretion only when a suitable appointment cannot be made in any of
the modes indicated”.
It will be observed, however, that this order makes provision for
filling only the less important consular positions, that is, those
paying between $1,000 and $2,500 per annum. As to the method of filling
the others it is silent.
In pursuance of this order the Secretary of State added a list of the
subjects to which the examination should relate, namely—
(1) General education, knowledge of languages, business training and
experience.
(2) The country in which the consul or commercial agent is to reside,
its government, chief magistrate, geographical features, principal
cities, chief production and its commercial intercourse and relations
with the United States.
(3) The exequatur, its nature and use.
(4) Functions of a consul or commercial agent as compared with those of
a vice consul or consular agent; relation of former to latter, also to
the United States minister or ambassador at the capital of the country.
(5) Duties of a consul or commercial agent as regards:
(a) Correspondence with the State Department and the form thereof.
(b) Passports, granting and visaing.
(c) United States merchant vessels in a foreign port, and their
crews, whether seeking discharge, deserting or destitute.
(d) Wrecks within jurisdiction.
(e) Wrongs to United States citizens within jurisdiction.
(f) Invoices.
(g) Official fees and accounts.
(6) Treaties between the United States and the foreign country.
(7) Relation of ambassador and minister to laws of the country to which
they are accredited, as compared with those of consul or commercial
agent to those of the countries where they reside.
(8) Acts of ambassador or minister, how far binding upon his country.
(9) Diplomatic, judicial, and commercial functions of consuls or
commercial agents.
(10) Piracy, what it is and where punishable.
(11) Consular Regulations of the United States—copy of which (to be
returned to the Department) will be supplied to each candidate upon
application.
(12) Such other subject or subjects as the Board may deem important and
appropriate in any particular case.
One might suppose that a man who could pass a good examination on the
above subjects would be pretty well qualified for the service, with one
glaring exception, namely, that nothing is said about _requiring_ an
acquaintance with modern languages, especially that of the country where
the consul is to be located.
Moreover, complaints are still coming in as before, so that, although it
is somewhat the fashion to condemn our consular system as the “worst in
the world”, it is evident that we haven’t got to the bottom of the
difficulty yet.
It needs no argument to show that the “spoils system”, pure and simple,
is the most suicidal policy possible. The logic of history—our own
history—upon this very point, is conclusive. But to throw the consular
and diplomatic service into the “classified list”, or, in other words,
to decide upon the fitness of a candidate merely upon the merits of a
civil service examination would make but small improvement. It would
tinker the old machine instead of replacing it with a new one. Such a
process may determine upon a candidate’s preparation—if an examination
may be said to determine anything—but it can not reach his
personality—what he is,—nor can it reveal his capacity for work—what he
can do.
Now these three points are to be considered in determining a candidate’s
fitness for any position whatever—what he is, what he knows, and what he
can do. The practical problems for the State Department are how to
determine what a man is when in the majority of cases he is an entire
stranger, how to discover what he can do when he has never been tested
by experience, and how to expect him to know much about the business
when there is not a school anywhere prepared to give the needed
instruction.
Suppose you want to prepare for this service, how would you go about it?
How would you find what was needed, what you should study and where to
look for it? The government provides no means whatever of preparing men
for foreign service. They simply get into it somehow—always, of course,
through political influence—and then learn it necessarily at government
expense. Just about the time they have mastered the language and are
prepared to do their best work, along comes a change of administration
and turns them out of office, and then the government begins again the
expensive task of training a new set of men. This is not a hypothetical
case. It is the rule rather than the exception.
Well, what ought to be done?
Why, establish some means of instruction for one thing. No one will
doubt the wisdom of maintaining the academies at West Point and
Annapolis for the Army and Navy, and are not the needs of the foreign
service, Diplomatic, Consular, and lately Colonial, as urgent and
important as the others? We have often heard the need of a great
national university urged, and we occasionally hear a timid plea for a
national school at Washington for the training of consuls and diplomats,
but it is gratifying to notice the declaration in favor of the latter by
such an eminent body of educators as those university presidents
constituting the committee chosen by the National Educational
Association to consider this very subject.
The need of a school of political science, economics, and modern
languages, and the need of its location at the capital of the nation and
under national control, is all the more urgent and unmistakable now that
questions in colonial government are coming up for solution; and when
one considers the multitude of problems afforded by the work of the
consular service, together with the statecraft of the diplomatic, it is
easy to see that there should be such an institution. A government which
has provided so liberally for general education ought not to neglect
that wise provision where its own efficient service demands it and
nothing else can well supply it.
But the school cannot do it all, and its work must be supplemented by
experience—say a year or more of residence for successful candidates at
a foreign consulate or legation. And whenever a new man is appointed it
should evidently be to one of the lower positions, leaving the higher
ones to be filled by promotion.
It is gratifying to notice that an honest and intelligent effort is
being made in Congress to bring about some needed reforms in the
consular service. A bill[2] is before the present House of
Representatives which provides that “appointments shall be made to
grades and not to specific places”. “A consul’s station”, says one
authority[3] commenting upon the bill, “should depend on the exigencies
of the service, and should not necessarily be permanent. Good consuls
may thus be obtained for undesirable places, a thing which is now well
nigh impossible”. “It provides also”, says the same authority, that
“removals shall not be made by caprice or for other than specified
cause. To put a check upon appointments only or removals only is to
leave at either end a loophole for evasion of the spirit of the reform.
By crowding one man in, another may be crowded out”.
Footnote 2:
H. R. 1026, 56th Congress. A Bill to increase the efficiency of the
foreign service of the U. S. and to provide for the reorganization of
the consular service, by Mr. Adams of Pennsylvania.
Footnote 3:
See article by Mr. Gaillard Hunt, Independent, Oct. 26, ’99.
One would be astonished that such common-sense measures as these have
not been in operation this long time, were it not for the power of
“practical politics”. The “practical politician” is discovered easily
and in every precinct. You have only to speak of efficiency or merit as
the chief test of a candidate’s fitness for office, and he will have
something to say about “giving every man a chance”, “changing around”,
“getting out of the ruts”, etc. Should a consul’s station depend upon
the “exigencies of the service”? Certainly; what is the service for? May
he not be “removed by caprice”? Certainly not; for again, what is the
service for?
Appointment to grades instead of to particular positions allows a
shifting of men from one post to another whenever it is desirable, and
it does so without sacrificing valuable experience. For it is true that
a long residence at one consulate may so familiarize a man with his
surroundings, especially if he finds himself in a lucrative business,
that he becomes in some degree alienated from his own country without
being aware of it. He may lose track of events at home or else become
accustomed to viewing them from a foreign standpoint, so that as a
result he falls into an apologetic tone toward those who criticize or a
critical attitude toward the home government. He is then in a fit
condition to be sent home. It has been suggested as a preventative to
this that consuls be recalled from time to time to give lectures
throughout the country, or instruction in a school for the consular
service. Otherwise the same result will be accomplished so far as the
consul is concerned, by shifting him to another position along with some
salutary advice as to what his business is. This provision also puts the
service more on a footing with the Army and Navy, which in many respects
would be a decided gain.
Since this bill or a similar one is likely to become a law, and in any
event has already earned strong endorsement, I append a few more of its
provisions.
Instead of consul general, consul and commercial agent there are to be
four grades, namely consul general of the first and the second class and
consul of the first and the second class.
All consular officers shall receive compensation in salaries—none in
fees.
Subjects in examination shall relate “chiefly but not exclusively to the
duties of the consular service, and for consul of the first class
examination in one foreign language will be required”.
The President is to appoint a board of five examiners, “who are to be
the Civil Service Commissioners and two officials of the State
Department”. These, however, shall have no connection with the
reorganization of the entire service, which is entrusted to a committee
consisting of two Senators, three Representatives and one officer of the
State Department. It is intended that this committee shall have a pretty
free hand in the inauguration of desirable changes, and the President is
given large discretion as to the manner of putting such changes into
execution.
There remains one important subject to be mentioned—the very difficult
subject of the selection of men for examination, or after examination it
may be. The present system is purely political. If you happen to have
“influence” which will secure you a recommendation to the President you
may be permitted to take the examination whenever a vacancy occurs.
Hence the way is pretty effectually barred as far as unsupported merit
is concerned; so it depends much more upon the “influence” than upon
your merit. This is open to obvious abuses, and in case restrictions as
to preparation are set aside, what have we but the “spoils system”?
On the other hand the Department must know something more about you than
an examination can show. It must have some assurance of your powers of
observation, your business acumen, your vigilance and alertness, and
especially your dignity and integrity of character, so that you may well
represent your country’s interests among foreigners, and defend the
international rights of your fellow citizens.
Whether any better way can be devised remains to be seen, but in justice
to the present system it must be said that it has secured many good
officials—so many, indeed, that the American consular system, according
to one writer[4], has become a subject of careful study by European
nations. The same writer quotes from _La Revue Diplomatique_ as follows:
“The Americans are practical men and their instinct for business is
marvelous. Nothing is more characteristic in this respect than the
organization of their consular corps. Its duty is that of a sort of
bureau of information at the expense of the state. It is recruited
principally from journalists, who carry into their official career the
trained instinct of observation, the quick grasp of passing events which
belong to their former profession.
“The American consul does not understand that he has a commercial
situation to maintain but always a commercial situation to conquer. His
ingenuity is exercised to invent and find new markets, and in his study
of ways and means, he descends to the most minute details. Despite their
colonial conquests, the Americans have comprehended that the real
struggle remains in the old markets—that there especially is the hard
school that will force them to manufacture and sell better than all
others”.
Footnote 4:
Francis B. Loomis, North American Review, Sept., 1899.
It appears from the above quotation, as well as others, that, in the
judgment of Europeans, the peculiar excellence of the American consul is
analogous to that of the American soldier—his ability to take the
initiative, to be his own commander.
After all, the man is more important than the equipment and harder to
discover.
AFTER APPOINTMENT.
Now let us watch our candidate get ready for business after he has
received notice of his appointment. Every consular officer before
entering upon his duties must take the prescribed oath of office and
give bond for a sum of not less than one thousand nor more than ten
thousand dollars. Then his commission is made out and given to the
Diplomatic Bureau along with a special passport and an order on his
predecessor to turn over the office to him. The commission is forwarded
to the diplomatic representative in the country where he is to be
stationed with instructions to procure from the government an exequatur.
An exequatur, in a word, is _permission to act_. It is simply a formal
recognition of the right of any country to grant or refuse to any other
country, or any of its representatives, the right to do business within
its territory.
Meanwhile our newly made consul is supposed to be very hard at work
completing his preparation, for he is to be at his post within thirty
days of the date of his commission, his salary having begun on the date
of his taking the oath of office. Having arrived at his post he notifies
the American legation of that fact and receives his exequatur. Then he
applies to the person in charge of the consulate for the government
archives, the seal and all other government property. In company with
his predecessor or the one in charge of the office, he makes an
inventory of all the effects, and transmits a copy of it to the State
Department.
It is expected that the consulate shall remain in the same place; but if
our consul prefers to move he may move. He must do so, however, subject
to instructions, for he is expected to establish his office “at the most
convenient, central location that the sum allowed for office rent will
permit”, and then give in minute detail a description of the new office
in a report to the State Department. “The arms of the United States
should be placed over the entrance to the consulate, unless prohibited
by the laws of the country.” The flag may be hoisted occasionally, on
national holidays, etc., if there is no objection, and it is always
hoisted when required for protection.
Nothing is stipulated as to his residence except that it must be within
the town in which he is doing business. Though he is expected to have
regular office hours, he must be willing to be at the service of the
public if called upon outside of those hours.
PRIVILEGES.
The consular service originally comprised some of the functions and
enjoyed many of the privileges of the diplomatic. It lost those
functions and most of the privileges when the diplomatic service
developed and became common, except in uncivilized countries. The consul
has lost, in the main, his representative character and has retained in
uncivilized countries his judicial power—capacity to act as a judge. The
consul has lost the right of exterritoriality, that is, the right to be
subject to the laws of his own country and not to those of the country
where he is stationed. However, he is under the special protection of
international law and is regarded as the officer “both of the state
which appoints and the state which receives him”. The extent of his
authority is derived from his commission and his exequatur, and the
extent of his privileges is defined for the most part by treaties
between his own government and the one where he is stationed. Among
these we will notice the following:
TREATY RIGHTS.
_The-most-favored-nation_ clause in a commercial or consular treaty
between two powers entitles the consuls of those two countries to all
the privileges that those countries grant to the consuls of other
powers. It is no more than an agreement between Smith and Jones that in
a certain particular they will treat each other as decently as they
treat any of their other neighbors.
_Inviolability of the archives and papers_ of the consulate means that
they cannot be seized or examined by anybody.
_Inviolability of the consular office and dwelling_ secures those places
from invasion even by officers of the law; but it is understood that
they are not to be used as an asylum or place of refuge for fugitives
from the law. If it is known that they are so used it is doubtful if
there are many countries where this would hold.
_Exemption from arrest_ secures to a consul the freedom of a diplomatic
officer, but this is seldom enjoyed in full. Usage inclines to grant
every liberty to a consul consistent with public welfare. He is seldom
exempt from arrest for crime.
_Exemption from obligation to appear as a witness_ “except for defense
of persons accused of crime” is secured in several countries.
_Exemption from taxation_ of personal property is secured in a number of
countries, provided the officer is not a citizen of that country, and
provided also he is not engaged in business.
This first proviso may sound a little strange, yet it is a fact that
Uncle Sam has often jeopardized his reputation for shrewdness by
employing citizens of a country to represent his commercial interests
right in their own home. A study of treaties will show that foreign
governments do not look upon this arrangement with more favor than we
should, hence it is a good practice to abandon.
_Exemption from military billetings and public services_ is granted upon
the same proviso mentioned above.
These are not all the points covered by treaties in reference to the
consular service, but the remainder contemplate his duties rather than
his privileges and may be mentioned, possibly, in the next lecture. Bear
in mind that these privileges do not exist in any country unless it is
so stipulated in a treaty between the United States and that particular
country.
PROHIBITIONS.
Uncle Sam doesn’t propose to have his public servants abroad
intermeddling in foreign politics. Consuls are desired to “cultivate
friendly social relations with the community in which they reside”, but
to “refrain from expressing harsh or disagreeable opinions upon local,
political or other questions which divide the community within their
jurisdiction. They are forbidden to participate in any manner in the
political concerns of the country. In their (public) dispatches upon
such subjects, they will confine themselves to the communication of
important or interesting public events as they occur, avoiding all
unnecessary reflections upon the character or conduct of individuals or
governments, and they will not give publicity, through the press or
otherwise, to opinions injurious to the public institutions of the
country or the persons concerned in their administration”.
This is good, sound diplomacy; and the same paragraph goes on to say,
“It is at the same time no less their duty to report freely and
seasonably to their own government all important facts which may come to
their knowledge touching the political condition of the country,
especially if their communications can be made to subserve or may affect
the interests of their own country”.
[Illustration: U.S. CONSUL]
PUBLIC SPEECHES.—He is “not allowed to allude in public speeches to any
matters in dispute between the United States and any other government,
nor to any matters pending in the consulate. It is a still better rule
to avoid public speeches when it can be done without exciting feeling”.
THE PRESS.—The prohibitions extend also to correspondence with the
press, not literary or non-political articles, but to such as touch upon
public affairs in any foreign government, or communications to
newspapers relative to epidemic diseases abroad.
GIFTS, TESTIMONIALS.—Consuls are not permitted to ask or accept for
themselves or anybody else “any present, emolument, pecuniary favor,
office or title of any kind from any foreign government”. If any such
offers are made to them “they may apply to Congress through the
Department of State for permission to accept the same”.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OFFICE.—Consuls are forbidden to recommend any one
for any governmental office or trust of profit. By permission of the
Secretary of State they may make recommendations to offices subject to
their own jurisdiction.
UNIFORM.—Consular officers are forbidden to wear any distinguishing
uniform. The Regulations are indulgent enough to allow them to wear an
Army uniform if they happen to have been in the Army of the United
States during the Rebellion.
ABSENCE.—Consuls are forbidden to be absent from their posts longer than
forty-eight hours without reporting to the Department about it. No one
is permitted to be absent more than ten days at any one time without
permission from the President. Special permission must be obtained in
order to return to the United States, and the statutes do not provide
for a continuance of salary for an absence of longer than sixty days.
This is about all that need be said about the consuls themselves. What
remains to be considered will come up in connection with the duties of
the consular office. We will wait a few moments for questions.
* * * * *
Q. “Professor, aren’t there other needed reforms in the consular service
besides those you have mentioned”?
A. “Certainly, but I preferred to dwell only upon the most difficult and
at the same time the most vital of them all; namely, the choice and
preparation of the men. I think it might be well to emphasize just a
point or two more in this connection. The first is that the consular
service ought not to be filled with foreigners. The Consular Register of
July, 1899, shows that out of 706 subordinate positions, including
commercial agencies, 412 are filled by men born in the country where
they are stationed. In fact, out of a total of 1,020 men in the consular
service only 547 are of American birth or parentage. The reason for this
is that so many of the positions don’t pay enough to induce Americans to
undertake them. Four or five hundred dollars a year may mean something
to a man who is on the spot, small as the sum is, but it shuts Americans
out of a large majority of the subordinate positions.
“The second point to be mentioned is the effect of this
parsimony—miscalled economy—upon the higher positions. For instance,
suppose a man is appointed to a place, the duties of which involve some
diplomatic responsibility. Such a man must live on a scale becoming his
position, or bring himself and his country into contempt. As a matter of
fact it has frequently happened that a thrifty consul, profiting by the
example in frugality set by his government, has tried to save money by
living in rented rooms above his business office, only to find when the
inspector came around that he had to move out and live in a more
sumptuous fashion. Aside from the question of sentiment, democratic or
undemocratic, the government is best served by a consul who, other
things being the same, enters a great deal into society and is not too
careful to live within his income. It gives him an influence, a prestige
among his surroundings which inures to the financial advantage of his
country. Uncle Sam pays less for his consular service than does any
other power of equal wealth, but those who know best the service and its
possibilities have always claimed that it is poor economy.”
[Illustration: Barking dog on a chain standing between man and money
bag]
Q. “Will you please distinguish again between Consular Clerks and Clerks
at Consulate”?
A. “Certainly; Consular Clerks are not stationed at consulates at all.
They are specialists who work upon some task assigned by the State
Department. Such a one may specialize upon a certain line of textile
fabrics in all its degrees of quality and the methods employed in its
manufacture. Another may become an expert authority on chemicals or iron
and steel products, etc. Clerks at Consulate are, as you may suppose,
those engaged in ordinary clerical duties at the consulates.”
Q. “Do you think that the present movement in favor of consular reform
has any partisan purpose”?
A. “Not at all. The last two administrations, i. e., Cleveland’s and
McKinley’s, have done more for this cause, perhaps, than all the others
put together. Moreover, the time just now is ripe for this reform and
Congressmen should be more than ever awake to the necessity of it,
irrespective of party”.
Q. “How about that school for consuls and diplomats, Professor? It seems
to me that however desirable it may be, it is hardly feasible for
partisan reasons.”
A. “That, of course, is the stock objection to such a proposition. Yet I
fail to see why such a school might not be put into the hands of a
non-partisan board—say the second and third Assistant Secretaries of
State, who do not change with the administration as a rule. And we might
add to these the Civil Service Commissioners, or any other competent
men, provided they are not to be meddled with on the score of
partisanship. Partisanship does not enter into the management of West
Point or Annapolis to any noticeable extent, nor does it prevent our
numerous State universities from being as well managed as other
institutions of learning.”
Q. “But why not leave all this to the institutions already established?”
A. “Well, perhaps as good a reason as any is that none of them are in
Washington. The government has here its great scientific museum, the
Smithsonian Institute; also its historical museum, various experiment
stations, and above all, perhaps, its Congressional Library and
collections of State papers and archives. Besides, diplomacy should be
learned from diplomats in active service—men acquainted with their
occupation both past and present, European and American. Such a school
need not be continuous, perhaps, or conducted as many months of the year
as other schools, its chief purpose being to satisfy the exigencies of
the Government, rather than to furnish a liberal education”.
Q. “I suppose, Professor, that our Government has treaties with most
other countries covering the principal points of commercial importance”?
A. “Yes, in the main, though there are some surprising exceptions. For
instance, ‘the-most-favored-nation’ clause is not in the treaties with
either Great Britain or Sweden and Norway. With many of our neighboring
states we have no extradition treaties whatever. A glance at the
synopsis[5] given will show that our treaties are fullest with the
following named countries: Austria, Belgium, Colombia, France, Germany,
Italy, Holland, Roumania, San Salvador and Servia. Evidently the
treaties with some of the other countries need overhauling.”
Footnote 5:
See Appendix.
[Illustration: Empty chair next to desk stacked with books]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: Woman with broom]
LECTURE
III
THE CONSULAR SERVICE—DUTIES.
Consular duties, like household duties, are very numerous; and about as
multiform as they are numerous. The mere mention of them, aside from any
description or dwelling upon particulars, would leave little time for
anything else to be said in the same lecture. We shall content
ourselves, therefore, with a cursory view, a glance over the whole field
of those duties, without stopping to distinguish between those of a
consul and those of a consul general, or of a seaport and of an inland
town.
The following classification will be found to be helpful and very nearly
comprehensive:
(1) Duties commercial.
(2) Duties in connection with customs regulations.
(3) Duties to merchant vessels.
(4) Duties in case of wrecks.
(5) Duties to officers, naval, diplomatic and departmental.
(6) Duties to seamen.
(7) Duties in regard to immigration and quarantine.
(8) Duties to citizens other than seamen.
(9) Duties judicial—in non-Christian countries.
(10) Duties to the State Department.
There are a few others, such as duties in regard to extradition, the
purchase and transference of foreign built vessels, etc., etc., which we
shall term miscellaneous.
DUTIES COMMERCIAL.
The most important of these—the one indeed which is now, as it always
has been, of central importance in the consular service, is the one
first mentioned—commercial duties. Owing to its importance I will quote
in full from the Consular Regulations, pages 248-51, the list of
subjects upon which the consul is expected to report to the State
Department:
“1. Conditions of foreign commerce and internal trade, manufacturers,
mechanical industries, agriculture, etc., especially—
“(a) Statistics of exports and imports, of shipping and of revenue and
expenditure of the country; amount of public debts, national and local;
rates of taxation, character of taxable basis, how taxation is levied
and collected, amount of taxation per capita, etc.; value, actual value
in exchange, and also as measured by the dollar of the United States;
changes in purchasing power of the currency; banking—new systems,
especially of savings banks and of banks as associations for lending
money to agriculturists, mechanics, and factory operatives; public loans
and the matters of finance affecting the industry or commerce of the
country; commercial credits—rates and periods usually granted to foreign
purchasers, and those expected from foreign shippers; trade usages and
peculiarities; special demands of consumers as to demand and quality of
goods or supplies already in use or capable of being introduced among
them, with suggestions as to the best and most economical style of
packing to conform to local requirements of sale and transportation.
“(b) Improvement of old and development of new industries, including
inventions or discoveries, and the result obtained from the practical
application of them.
“(c) Introduction of inventions made in the United States or imitations
of them; application of business or mechanical methods employed in the
United States.
“(d) Importation and use of food supplies, raw materials and
manufactures from the United States, or the possibility of introducing
them, and local or race requirements to make them acceptable to foreign
consumers.
“2. Facilities for direct and indirect communication with the United
States—establishment of new ocean or international railroad lines or
agencies; development of internal transportation lines—railroads,
highways and steamboat or other carriage on rivers and canals, or
betterment of them; opening up of new trade routes or abandonment of old
ones; changes in transportation rates, both freight and passenger, which
are of general interest to commerce; bounties or subsidies to railroads
and shipping.
“3. Development or decline of commercial and manufacturing centers;
causes of drift of agricultural population to towns and cities;
diversion of trade from one local market or district to another;
projects for great manufacturing or other industrial enterprises for
harbor or river improvement, for better methods of lighting, street
paving, water supply, sewerage and disposal of sewage, economy of
municipal taxation and expenditure; hygienic and quarantine measures;
police systems, urban and rural.
“4. Changes in economic condition of producing communities, urban and
rural; fluctuations in rates of wages, cost of living, prices of
products, raw and manufactured, especially for food supplies, wearing
apparel, agricultural and domestic implements, machinery, etc.; scarcity
or glut of articles of consumption of all kinds, particularly those
produced in the United States; changes in hours of labor or other
conditions affecting workingmen, trades’ unions; strikes and lockouts;
systems of co-operation and profit sharing; government measures
(national, municipal or local) or private (organized) projects for
insurance or care of infirm or superannuated laborers, for improved
sanitation of factories and dwellings, for regulating the labor of women
and children, and for combating usury in the lending of money; technical
and commercial education; museums, exhibitions, merchants’ unions and
similar organizations for promoting trade, and the functions assumed by
the state in connection therewith.
“5. All changes in tariff legislation, including new rates of export,
import, or transit duties, special care being taken to state whether
they discriminate in favor of or against the United States as compared
with other countries. When a wholly new tariff law is enacted it should
be given in full with an explanatory statement of increase or decrease
in duties as compared with the tariff previously existing. Prompt notice
of contemplated tariff legislation should be sent to the Department. By
tariff legislation are meant not only measures affecting export and
import duties, but also those relating to customs administration,
transit duties, octroi or municipal taxes upon supplies entering cities
and towns, taxes imposed upon the import or export of articles from one
political district of a country (such as a state, province, canton,
arrondissement, etc.) to another, tonnage, taxes and port dues, or other
taxes upon shipping, etc.
[Illustration: Man surrounded by stacks of paper]
“6. Legislation or proposed legislation of interest to farmers,
merchants, mechanics, inventors, etc., such as changes in patent, trade
mark, and copyright laws; laws to prevent adulteration of food, or to
prohibit importation or sale of adulterated or impure food; laws
prohibitory of importation of diseased animals, impure seeds, etc.;
measures discriminating for or against any particular class of products
or against imports from any country; bounties granted to special lines
of manufacture or agricultural production; changes in legislation
concerning agricultural, commercial or industrial concessions, such as
government land grants, railroad bonuses, special privileges, and
exemptions for colonists; encouragements to or restrictions of
immigration; rights of citizenship; taxation or exemption of
manufacturing plants, machinery and implements; licenses to trade;
taxation of commercial travelers; legislation as to bankruptcy and
collection of debts, etc. Also decisions of courts or of government
officers on important commercial questions; government regulations
relating to law changes; changes in commercial procedure.
“7. Undertakings and enterprises of moment—the construction of public
works, the opening of mines, the granting of concessions for working
minerals or forests, or for other similar purposes”.
This is an admirable list for any one to study if he would learn what
are the signs of a nation’s material prosperity. It deserves further
comment because of its importance to the consular service, but we must
pass on.
DUTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CUSTOMS REGULATIONS.
A large share of the routine of every consulate is concerned with the
customs regulations, certifying to invoices, guarding against fraud,
keeping account of all transactions and reporting the same to the State
Department. If you are engaged in importing “fancy Scotch cheviots”
(your imported Scotch goods are made in America, however), the goods
must be described in full in a consular invoice. This invoice must be
signed by yourself or agent and accompanied by an “official shipper’s
certificate”, which amounts to saying that the invoice is “all right”,
and this again must be signed by the shipper and certified by the
consul. Thus the consular service facilitates the work of the customs
officials by having imported goods invoiced before arrival at the “port
of entry”.
DUTIES TO MERCHANT VESSELS.
An American merchant vessel sailing from an American to a foreign port
is required under penalty to deposit its register and also its sea
letter with the American consul immediately upon reaching its
destination. “It is usual also to deposit its crew list and shipping
articles”. These documents are known as the “ship’s papers”, and are
kept by the consul until the ship has received “clearance”.
The consul is required to give the masters of vessels all information in
his possession concerning coast surveys, pilot and hydrographic charts,
etc., such as are published by the Navy Department, and to furnish to
the State Department any information that may be of service to
navigation.
DUTIES IN CASE OF WRECKS.
No consular officer is permitted to take any action in case of a wreck,
if the “owner, master or consignee thereof is present and capable of
taking possession of the same”. If no such person is present, the consul
is required, so far as the laws of the land permit, to take all
necessary action for the preservation of vessel and cargo, and keep
inventories of the same, together with the expense involved. The consul
must make a full report of such wrecks to the State Department, whether
they occur within his jurisdiction or are brought in.
In case Americans are shipwrecked the consuls are required to “render
such assistance as may be in their power”, but they are not authorized
to incur any expense with the expectation that it will be met by the
State Department.
Whenever foreigners render aid to shipwrecked Americans, the Consul is
required to forward to the State Department an account of the facts,
giving the name of the master of the foreign vessel and those of the
crew who especially distinguished themselves for heroism or humanity.
These details should be quite exact, as they are to be laid before the
President, who is authorized by Congress to make suitable
acknowledgment. In some cases the consul may reward a rescuing crew out
of funds at his disposal.
DUTIES TO OFFICERS—NAVAL AND DIPLOMATIC.
Duties to naval officers were mentioned in connection with “rank” in the
preceding lecture. Officers of the Navy are under a reciprocal duty to
consuls, however, which should be mentioned. On this point I quote the
exact words of the Regulations.
“The Navy is an independent branch of the service, not subject to the
orders of the Department of State, and its officers have fixed duties
prescribed for them; consuls will, therefore, be careful to ask for the
presence of a naval force at their posts only when public exigencies
absolutely require it, and will then give the officers in command the
full reasons for the request and leave with them the responsibility of
action. If the request is addressed to the Department of State, the
reasons should likewise be fully stated for its information.”
The diplomatic service has general supervision over the consular service
in any one country. When there is a consul general, this supervision is
exercised through him, and the consuls will not correspond officially
with the diplomatic officers—except in reply to inquiries. Where there
is no consul general the consuls will correspond directly with the
diplomatic officials and “endeavor in all cases to comply with their
requests and wishes”. Leaves of absence and recommendations for
appointment of subordinate officers are usually sent through the
diplomatic officers.
Sometimes in the absence of a diplomatic officer a consul general or
consul may discharge the duties of a diplomatic officer. Sometimes the
two offices are united in the one representative.
“Consular officers will confer freely with the Treasury revenue agents
who may be appointed to visit and examine the consulates. They will
remember, however, that these agents have no authority to instruct them
as to their official acts”.
DUTIES OR RELATIONS TO SEAMEN.
To no other class of citizens, save in uncivilized countries, does the
consul stand in such immediate relationship as to seamen. This would
seem to be because as a class, since their occupation takes them to all
parts of the world and away from the protection of their own country,
and, moreover, because they are laborers and not men of means, they are
more at the mercy of circumstances as well as of unscrupulous masters in
foreign lands. On the other hand, justice to the masters also requires
national authority to enforce contracts and assist in securing harmony
often-times on shipboard. Fully 57 pages of the Regulations are taken up
with this subject under the following heads:
1. Shipment of seamen.
2. Discharge of seamen.
3. Wages and effects of seamen.
4. Relief of seamen.
5. Transportation of seamen.
6. Desertion of seamen.
7. Disputes between masters, officers and crews.
A master of an American merchant vessel who engages any seamen in a
foreign port must do so under penalty in the presence of the American
consul and only with his sanction. The engagement must be signed in
duplicate by both master and men in the presence of the consul, who must
see to it that the seamen understand clearly the terms of the contract.
Seamen may be engaged for a definite time, for a round trip, for a
single voyage or “by the lay”, and the terms of the agreement are called
the “shipping articles”. In case of desertion or casualty the master may
engage a number of seamen equal to the number lost and report to the
first consul he sees. In case a vessel is purchased abroad and the
seamen “have not character of American seamen” (subsequently defined),
they do not come within the jurisdiction of the consul.
An American seaman is (1) an American citizen or (2) a foreigner shipped
in an American vessel in an American port or (3) a foreign seaman
shipped in an American vessel in either an American or a foreign port,
who has declared his intention in a competent court to become a citizen
of the United States and has served three years thereafter on American
merchant vessels. For purposes of protection the filing of the
declaration is sufficient.
A consular officer may discharge a seaman upon his own or his master’s
application, provided the terms of the agreement have been fulfilled. He
is also to give a certificate to that effect to the seaman. Other cases
where American seamen are discharged abroad are for sickness,
misconduct, on the sale of American vessel, on account of ill treatment,
when vessel is wrecked or condemned as unseaworthy, etc. The general
policy of the government is to “discountenance the discharge of seamen
in a foreign port”, and any master who knowingly abandons a seaman
abroad is subject to fine and imprisonment. “Cases have occurred in
which the consular officers have, with the subsequent approval of the
Department of State, removed masters of vessels and appointed others in
their places to complete the voyage”, but this was only when the “gross
incompetency” of the masters endangered the lives of passengers and
crew.
A consul in discharging a seaman, must see to it that his wages are
paid, otherwise “he shall be held accountable to the United States for
the full amount thereof”.
It is the duty of the consul to provide for destitute seamen, to secure
their transportation to the United States at government expense, subject
always to certain conditions, and to take charge of their effects upon
their death at sea or in port.
The consular officers must help to reclaim deserters and call in the
assistance of the local authorities for this purpose if necessary, which
they are authorized to do by treaty with several countries and by comity
or usage with others.
One of the many interesting points in international law is that of
“mixed jurisdiction”, as it is called, or jurisdiction within a harbor.
A dispute on shipboard on the high seas is clearly within the
jurisdiction of the country under whose flag the vessel is sailing, but
when the vessel comes into the harbor of another country it is just as
clear that the jurisdiction of that country is superior. As a matter of
practice, however, it has long been found best to allow all such
controversies occurring on shipboard within a harbor to be tried by the
law and authorities to which the vessel is subject, provided, of course,
that “it does not involve the peace or dignity of the country, or the
tranquility of the port” where it occurs. In all such cases the consul,
as the representative of his government, acts as an officer of justice.
Where he is authorized by treaty to call for local aid he is cautioned
not to do so if it can be avoided. If such aid is refused, he should lay
claim to his treaty rights and then report at once to the diplomatic
officers in the country and to the State Department.
This hurried review of the consul’s relations to seamen leaves a great
deal unsaid, but the main points, at least, have been touched upon. Let
us now turn to
IMMIGRATION.
The old idea that this land is an asylum for all kinds and conditions of
men is now happily exploded. The classes of aliens now excluded are as
follows:
(a) Chinese laborers.
(b) Contract laborers.
(c) All idiots and insane persons.
(d) Paupers or persons likely to become a public charge.
(e) Persons suffering from a loathsome or contagious disease.
(f) Felons and all criminals except political offenders; (and these
latter are excluded if the penalty is removed upon condition of
immigration).
(g) Polygamists.
(h) Assisted immigrants.
(i) Abandoned women.
Every master of a vessel having on board immigrants bound for any port
in the United States is obliged upon arrival to submit a manifest to the
inspector of immigration. A manifest is a list of the immigrants on
board, with a general description of each one, giving name, age, sex,
nationality, ability to read and write, calling or occupation, means,
destination, etc. This must be subscribed and sworn to by the master in
the presence of the consul before the vessel can leave port, and in like
manner the surgeon of the vessel must take oath that he has made a
personal examination of each one and finds everything satisfactory.
QUARANTINE.
Before clearing for any American port any vessel in a foreign port must
procure from the consul a “bill of health”, which is a certificate to
the effect that the sanitary conditions of the vessel are satisfactory
and that all rules and regulations in such cases have been complied
with. The consul must take pains to satisfy himself before granting the
“bill of health”, and for this purpose a medical officer is often
detailed by the Government. A master of a vessel who sails into an
American port without having procured a “bill of health” is liable to a
fine not to exceed $5,000.
DUTIES TO CITIZENS OTHER THAN SEAMEN.
Citizens going abroad for business or pleasure may find it to their
advantage to inquire into the consideration that Uncle Sam is prepared
to show them when abroad. The freedom of travel you enjoy at home is a
small thing until, in a foreign land, you find yourself confronted by an
officer of the law demanding your passports. Besides, there are numerous
little official courtesies for which the traveler or sojourner will be
very grateful, and in cases of emergency assistance may be rendered far
beyond all adequate reward.
As was said before, passports may be procured from the State Department,
otherwise through the diplomatic officers, or in their absence, through
the consular service. If the applicant is accompanied by his wife, minor
children, servant, etc., the one passport answers for all.
A consular officer may verify or visé (pronounced vee-záy) a passport by
writing on it the word “good” in the language of the country, and
affixing his official signature and seal. Diplomatic representatives
should visé passports only when there is no consulate in the city where
the legation is situated. A visé is good only in the country where it is
given.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Restricted
Immigration
See page 101.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The government affords all the protection it can under the
circumstances. Of course it can have no jurisdiction in criminal cases,
except in uncivilized countries, and it can have no civil jurisdiction
except by treaty or by the law of the land. “The right of a citizen to
claim protection is founded upon the ‘correlative right’ of his country
to his ‘allegiance and support.’” Consuls are “particularly cautioned
not to enter into any contentions that can be avoided, either with their
countrymen or with the subjects or authorities of the country. They
should use every endeavor,” continues the “Regulations”, “to settle in
an amicable manner all disputes in which their countrymen may be
concerned, but they should take no part in litigation between citizens.
They should countenance and protect them before the authorities of the
country in all cases in which they may be injured or oppressed, but
their efforts should not be extended to those who have been wilfully
guilty of an infraction of the local laws. It is incumbent upon citizens
of the United States to observe the reasonable laws of the country where
they may be. It is their duty to endeavor on all occasions to maintain
and promote all the rightful interests of citizens, and to protect them
in all privileges that are provided for by treaty or are conceded by
usage. If representations are made to the local authorities and fail to
secure the proper redress, the case should be reported to the consul
general, if there be one, or to the diplomatic representative if there
be no consul general, and to the Department of State.”
I have quoted this passage almost entirely because it is the best
expression to be found, probably, of the general attitude of the
Government of the United States toward its citizens abroad.
Citizens intending to sojourn abroad should register at the consulate
within which they are to reside. This is not required, but it may be a
great convenience both ways.
Who are citizens? (1) “All persons born in the United States and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof”; (2) all children born to such natives,
even if beyond the jurisdiction of the United States; (3) “any white
woman, or woman of African nativity or descent, or Indian woman, married
to a citizen of the United States, is a citizen thereof”; (4)
naturalized citizens; (5) the minor children of naturalized citizens.
“An official letter of introduction, when given to a citizen of the
United States, is valuable to the holder for prompt identification in
case he needs the intervention of a consular officer in his behalf. But
in no case must the letter be understood or taken as implying any claim
upon the consul for hospitality or personal courtesies beyond the
politeness always due to citizens of the United States when they have
legitimate business with a consulate”.
Consuls are not allowed to give their names as business references, nor
to report the financial standing of houses in their districts. Such
requests should be referred to banks or business agencies.
“Consular officers are not authorized to indorse notes or bills of
exchange, nor in other ways to become responsible pecuniarily for
American citizens or others who have no personal claims upon them.” Such
transactions are not a part of the official duties of a consular
officer. He is “not authorized to lend money to indigent citizens of the
United States or others, nor to incur expenses or liabilities for any
persons except seamen of the United States, in the expectation of
reimbursement by the Government”.
Consular officers are forbidden to solemnize marriages. A marriage may
be solemnized in the presence of a consular officer as a witness, and in
that case it has certain peculiarities, as will be seen from the
following:
According to international law the mode of solemnizing marriage conforms
to the law of the place where it is performed. But there are many
conceivable circumstances which might make this undesirable, and in such
cases it is declared by the statutes that “marriages in presence of any
consular officer of the United States in a foreign country, between
persons who would be authorized to marry if residing in the District of
Columbia, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, and shall have the
same effect as if solemnized within the United States”. In all such
cases the consul must give a certificate to each of the parties and
forward a copy to the Department of State.
In case of the death of an American citizen abroad, it is the duty of
the consul to take possession of his estate, provided there is no other
legal representative, and provided, also, the laws of the country so
permit,—to inventory the same with the help of two merchants (Americans,
preferably), to make collections and to discharge the debts due from the
estate, to sell at public auction such part as is of a perishable
nature, and at the expiration of one year the remainder, and finally to
transmit the proceeds to the Treasury of the United States to be held in
trust for the legal claimants, who, however, are at liberty to appear at
any time and take charge of the proceedings and the estate themselves.
This applies to personal property only—real estate being administered
according to the laws of the locality. In the absence of a treaty
covering such points the consul is to proceed in the above manner unless
it is known that the local authorities are unwilling, for “he should
avoid the appearance of opposing or disregarding actual local
requirements”.
The same proceedings as the above are followed in case a citizen dies on
the high seas “on either an American or a foreign vessel, and his
effects are brought within a consular district”.
JUDICIAL DUTIES—IN NON-CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES.
The use of the term “non-christian”, which in the present day is giving
place to “uncivilized”, is as old as the consular system itself; that is
to say, it has come down to us from mediaeval times when the consular
system originated. It might still have been retained had it not been for
the progress of one country, Japan, which may be better described as
civilized rather than Christian.
The judicial power of a consul, therefore, remains as a relic of
mediaevalism, and it remains because the need remains; for just as
civilized countries five hundred years ago were unwilling to look to the
Turk for justice, so they are to-day, and treaties to that effect secure
Turkish recognition of this humiliating state of things. As it is with
Turkey so it is with China, Korea, Siam, Persia, Madagascar, Borneo,
etc., the treaties varying considerably in each case.
This assumption of superiority by the self-styled civilized countries
would be hard to justify on the ground of theoretical ethics, but
apparently theoretical and practical or applied ethics sometimes diverge
very widely, and when they do diverge no statesman hesitates as to which
he shall follow.
From the tiresome details of Title XLVII, U. S. Revised Statutes, which
deals fully with courts of this character, the following points may be
gleaned:
(1) Cases arising between Americans are tried before American officers.
(2) Cases arising between Americans and others not natives are arranged
by their respective consular officers; in Turkey they are tried in the
consulate of the defendant.
(3) Cases arising between Americans and natives are tried before an
American tribunal in China, Siam and Madagascar; before a mixed tribunal
in Persia, the Barbary States and Turkey.
It is rather startling to notice the power entrusted to one man, as is
done by our government in the case of the consuls to these countries. A
consul, for instance, can issue a warrant for the arrest of a man merely
upon his own initiative, and can then proceed to try him, he himself
acting as judge and jury. He first submits a list of men to the
minister, who selects from one to four to sit with him in the trial as
advisers. These advisers must record and sign their judgment of the
case, but it is the consul’s judgment that condemns or acquits.
In trials for capital offenses there must be four advisers, and their
judgment must concur with the consul’s, and their combined judgment must
be approved by the minister before there can be conviction. In some
cases appeal may be made to the minister and rarely to a U. S. circuit
court, but in general the decision of the consul is final. Hence,
although the power of life and death is lodged in the hands of the
consul, it is well safeguarded, and the danger of its abuse is more
apparent than real.
There are some miscellaneous duties devolving upon the consular service
which we will notice briefly before turning finally to the duties to the
State Department.
EXTRADITION.
Whenever a criminal attempts to escape justice by fleeing to another
country it is a delicate matter to recapture him, necessarily; for aside
from the ordinary difficulties of the case the powers add a few by their
carefulness to preserve each other’s dignity in such matters. Thus the
pursuit of a criminal by the officers of one country into the territory
of another, even when permitted by treaty, may result in a rather
awkward state of things, especially if what is regarded as a crime in
the one is not so much of a crime in the other. For instance, suppose
that the laws of Canada regarding embezzlement are not as stringent as
are those of the United States, or suppose she hasn’t any at all: one
can see that a request by our Government for the extradition of an
embezzler might strain international courtesy more than a trifle. A
treaty is a prerequisite to extradition in any country, and fortunately
our Government has such treaties with most of her neighbors, though
there are some startling exceptions.
Whenever a warrant or “requisition” is made for a fugitive criminal it
is usual to act through a diplomatic officer. If it is made through a
consul it must first be with the sanction of the State Department.
TRANSFER OF FOREIGN VESSELS.
The right of citizens to purchase foreign-made vessels abroad involves
the right to the protection of those vessels. A vessel cannot sail the
high seas without registration and a flag; for if she does she is liable
to seizure as a pirate. Hence the ceremony of transfer in such a case
must be attended to by the consul.
Ordinarily this does not imply any great responsibility, but while a war
is in progress it is a very different thing, no matter whether we are
neutrals or belligerents. To illustrate: Suppose during the recent war
the owner of an American vessel wished to put it out of danger by
putting it under a neutral flag. This he might do by a pretended sale to
a citizen of a foreign country through the connivance of a consul. It is
the consul’s duty, therefore, to prevent such fraudulent sales, to take
all possible pains to satisfy himself that the sale is or is not a
genuine transaction.
WATCHING ENEMY’S VESSEL.
In case of war with another power the consuls are required to keep watch
on the movements of the enemy’s vessels and report promptly to the
Department.
AS A FOREIGN AGENT.
During the progress of a war between two foreign states our consuls may
as a matter of courtesy to one or both of them take charge of its
consular offices and effects. This must be with the permission of the
Secretary of State, however, and the Government assumes no
responsibility for the acts of the consuls.
DUTIES TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT—AND OTHERS.
The consular service may be likened to a great reporting system. The
consuls are reporters, their offices are news agencies, their field the
world, their managing and publishing office the State Department, their
organ the Consular Reports, their readers—just a few persons, here and
there, whose numbers, by the way, are increasing. In addition to the
correspondence which must be carried on in connection with the duties
mentioned, the consul may have occasional correspondence on public
business with “the Secretary of the Treasury, the Comptroller, the
Auditor for the State and other Departments, the Register of the
Treasury, collectors of customs as to invoices and prices current, the
diplomatic representative of the United States in the country where he
resides, other consular officers, and with naval or military officers in
the service of the United States who may be employed in the
neighborhood, and to whom it may be necessary to communicate immediately
any event of public interest, and with no other person”.
This, I trust, will serve as a brief conspectus of consular duties, and
now we will listen to questions.
* * * * *
After dismissal a group of men including a banker, a merchant, two
manufacturers, a grain dealer, some traveling men, etc., made their way
to the platform and were introduced to Professor Loyal as some of the
business men of the place.
“We suppose, Professor,” said one of them, “that it is rather aside from
your purpose to tell us how to reach foreign trade—how to get our goods
on the market—and yet it is the very thing we need to know; so if you
can give us any further light we shall appreciate it”.
“I am very glad to hear you say so”, said the Professor, “for that is
just what the consular service is intended to do, while my purpose is to
serve as an introduction committee between you and the service. You will
find in the syllabi the name and address of every member of the consular
and diplomatic services all over the world, and they, no doubt, will
furnish you all the information you need. The Regulations, indeed, have
this to say: ‘Inquiries made by citizens of the United States touching
business matters, or other matters not of mere curiosity, should be
answered as far as they can be consistently with the consul’s other
duties. All inquiries of this character should be acknowledged, even
when it is impracticable to answer them’”.
“But why not write at once to the State Department”?
“That may be just as well. The supposition is, however, if you know in
what country you expect to find your market the consular service there
can give you the most help, because the local conditions are known. If
you do not know where to find your market, you should at least
familiarize yourself with the Consular Reports, the ‘advance sheets’ of
which give the latest news from foreign markets. If you are exporters
you will have no difficulty in obtaining these through your
Congressmen”.
“Don’t you suppose, Professor, that a handbook of directions to shippers
could be prepared by the Government—something to show how goods should
be manufactured or packed, as well as cost of transportation, customs
duties in foreign ports, etc.”?
“Yes, but you would find your handbook growing to enormous size, until
finally it would be no less and no other than the Consular Reports. The
trouble is, or has been, that people don’t read these enough. Now, let
us get an idea of what such a handbook would contain. What do you
manufacture”?
“Farming machinery”.
“Well, now let us suppose you have discovered that there is a market for
your merchandise in Argentina. Suppose, too, that the horses in that
country are of lighter draft than ours: then your machines must be
lightened correspondingly, and this involves a good deal of detail.
Again, their soil will differ from that for which you are manufacturing,
consequently you may have to change the shape of your plows, or the
construction of your harrows, or the size of your drills. Again, one
must make sure that the natives can handle intricate machinery before
sending any twine-binders, steam-engines, etc. Then, too, you must learn
the strong and the weak points of the machinery with which you are to
compete. So you see, when it is remembered that we have been considering
a few contingencies in regard to only one line of industry, and that,
too, in only one country, the sum of the contingencies is enormous. When
it comes to cottons or woolens the case is much the same; the width,
texture, color, pattern, price—everything which makes goods salable in
any one country—must be known, and the advertisements put in a way that
appeals to native sentiment and taste. In the Consular Reports you will
get the information you need, and you will find it hard to be put in a
handbook”.
“Well, as a matter of fact, I haven’t seen much of the Consular
Reports”, said one.
“Nor I, either”, said several others, as they turned to go.
[Illustration: Man carrying suitcase and oversized passport]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: Pen, ink bottle and scroll.]
LECTURE
IV
DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.
In 1815 the Congress of Vienna adopted seven rules for the regulation of
diplomatic intercourse. The United States was not represented at this
historic congress—wasn’t important enough and perhaps wasn’t interested
enough; but it has chosen to conform to the rules, nevertheless. The
fact that we had nothing to do with the promulgation of these rules and
that we are the only power that has since grown into a commanding
position, gives us a diplomatic advantage, an independence agreeable to
our national ideals and geographical situation. The first of these rules
reads as follows:
“Article 1. Diplomatic agents are divided into three classes: That of
Ambassadors, legates or nuncios; that of envoys, ministers or other
persons accredited to sovereigns; that of chargés d’affaires accredited
to ministers for foreign affairs”.
Three years after the Congress of Vienna the Congress of Aix la Chapelle
adds an eighth article, which reads as follows:
“Article VIII.—It is agreed that ministers resident accredited to them”
(to sovereigns, presumably) “shall form, with respect to their
precedence, an intermediate class between ministers of the second class
and chargés d’affaires”.
Consequently the classification of our diplomatic officers is as
follows:
1. Ambassadors. We do not send or receive legates or nuncios, as there
are representatives of the Pope, and to do so would be contrary to our
national policy respecting church and state.
2. Envoys, ministers or other persons accredited to sovereigns. This
class includes that official with the ridiculously lengthy title of
envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary—usually called minister
“for short”.
3. Ministers resident, who are usually also consuls general. There are
but four of these in our service, and as there is little justification
for this grade it will probably some day be abolished.
4. Chargés d’affaires (pronounced shar-zha-daffair), who are not
accredited to sovereigns, but to the minister for foreign affairs.
It should be borne in mind that this classification has nothing whatever
to do with the transaction of business. All diplomats have essentially
the same duties to perform. It is merely a matter of precedence, which
was considered much more important at the time of the Vienna congress
than it is now. Indeed, there are good reasons for thinking that we have
outgrown these distinctions and should straightway abandon them. This
much, at least, is apparent to all—that the chief diplomatic officer at
every legation ought to be an ambassador, thus making no invidious
distinctions between countries.
[Illustration: DIPLOMACY]
As it is at present we send ambassadors to the most important countries,
envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary to those that are
next important to us, and so on. Thus there are five ambassadors; one
each at London, Paris, Berlin, St. Petersburg and Mexico respectively,
thirty envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary, four
ministers resident, and one who is classed as a chargé d’affaires.
There are secretaries of legation at twenty-three different capitals,
who in the absence of their chief may become chargés d’affaires
exercising all the functions of a diplomatic officer. At fourteen
different capitals there are military or naval attachés, sometimes both,
and an interpreter at six of them.
Legation, or embassy, formerly meant the particular business, the
errand, so to speak, upon which the ambassador was sent.
These terms are now used more often to designate the officers themselves
who are sent on an embassy, and finally by the extension of the term
they also mean the official residence of those officers.
American legations as a rule have fewer members than those of other
great nations and are much less expensive. The American diplomatic
service costs only one fourth as much as the British. Whether or not the
result is desirable upon the whole you may judge for yourselves; for
while it must be said that we have as a rule been very well served
diplomatically, yet on the other hand one direct result of our economy
is that only men of wealth can afford to be ambassadors. The cost of
living, and especially of entertaining, is so high and the salary is so
inadequate that no man in ordinary circumstances can occupy a high
diplomatic position where the social requirements are burdensome.
In several cases the parsimony of the Government has been quite contrary
to its own best interests. In Central and South America, for instance,
where we ought, by all means, to be well represented, the same officer
is frequently accredited to two, or even three different countries. Now,
no country likes to have a representative of an inferior grade
accredited to it, certainly not when a mere change of title would mend
the matter, but when it comes to being bunched together with another
country or two by a powerful and wealthy neighbor it is almost
insulting, and the countries in question show a justifiable resentment.
In such countries we will find European nations well represented, and
yet we wonder at our own loss of prestige.
PURPOSE.
As long as the nations have any dealings with each other as nations, so
long will it be necessary for them to have representatives, honored and
trusted by those who receive them as well as those who send them, at
each other’s capitals. It might almost be said that they exist for the
prevention of business—the business arising from misunderstandings—for
their primary duty is, while representing their own nation with dignity
and reserve, to cultivate friendly relations with the power to which
they are accredited, as far as circumstances will allow. To do this they
interpret the public acts of their own government as it wishes to be
understood, and are frequently entrusted with large discretionary powers
for this purpose. Moreover, they expedite business and help to avoid
annoyances in a very large measure. The government at Washington, for
instance, wishes to know the attitude of the government at Berlin upon a
certain matter without making it too formal or exaggerating its
importance, and accordingly application is made at once either to the
German ambassador residing at Washington or to the American ambassador
in Berlin, either of whom, if it lies within his discretion, gives the
desired information. If the whole thing is quietly done, so as to escape
general notice, it saves needless wild guessing as to what it all means;
and this is greatly to be desired when things are in an acute stage, if
not at other times. The recent triumph of the “open door” policy in
China was accomplished in this quiet, effective way.
It will be observed that the modern conception of the function of a
diplomat makes him a resident of the country of his embassage during the
time of his appointment. Moreover, that he is not sent on any stated
errand, as for instance, the negotiation of a treaty, or as a member of
an international congress. This latter, to be sure, is diplomatic
business, but the agents employed are usually termed commissioners.
ORIGIN.
It was in this latter sense, however, that the term ambassador was
originally used.
Just when it had its origin it would be hard to say, but it was so far
back in antiquity that the sanctity of religion must needs be thrown
about the persons of the officials to shield them from violence. In
ancient times when an ambassador went to a foreign court he went with a
special message, and having delivered it and received a reply, his
business was ended and he returned homeward. His official dignity was
but little inferior to that of the sovereign. Indeed he represented not
only his country but the person of his sovereign, and he was accredited
not to any foreign minister, but directly to the sovereign. Hence his
visit, especially if friendly, was attended with an elaborate display of
pomp and ceremony, the exchange of gifts and courtly compliments, and it
would have been a royal sight to have beheld his journey through the
“lovely land ...
Whose loveliness was more resplendent made
By the mere passing of that cavalcade
With plumes and cloaks and housings, and the stir
Of jeweled bridle and of golden spur”.
When he began to stay abroad, some four or five hundred years ago, his
purpose was mischievous. He stayed to act as a court spy and intriguer,
to find out secrets while keeping his own. A certain diplomat of the
seventeenth century is said to have written in praise of his occupation,
diplomacy “causes sudden revolutions in great states. It excites
hatreds, jealousies and seditions. It arms princes and whole nations
against their own interests; it forms leagues and other treaties among
sovereigns and peoples whose interests are quite opposed to one another;
it destroys those leagues and snaps the closest ties asunder”. There is
no doubt as to what this means. It is war—polite war, if you please,
where the weapons are deception, hypocrisy, insinuation and innuendo—the
meanest kind of war, where cowards may be greater than heroes.
“If they lie to you, lie still more to them”, was the naive instruction
given by one sovereign to his ambassadors.
Not to multiply instances on a point where history is unfortunately too
full, it is interesting to notice, as some one has pointed out, that
with rapid communication by train and by telegraph, court intrigues have
gradually died away; for now that the capitals of the world are within
“whispering distance” of each other, as it were, ambassadors have
assumed a position of secondary importance to the minister for foreign
affairs (or in America the Secretary of State), an officer who resides
at the home capital.
PRECEDENCE.
Naturally enough, one of the questions of greatest concern at a
mediaeval court was that of precedence—who was the biggest man, and the
next and so on. Talk about comic opera! In more than one historic
instance the question of precedence among diplomats, or the consequent
squabbles between their trains of attendants, fairly “out-Herods Herod”
in farcicalness. “The Conferences of Ryswyk”, we are told, “were held in
a house which seemed to have been built for the purpose, with three
separate entrances and every convenience for preventing collisions; but
it was found impossible from first to last to sit at the single table in
the rooms assigned to the mediators, because no agreement could be come
to about the order of sitting; in that room they could only stand; they
sat in a circle in another room where there was no table. A Latin
protocol, which had been preserved of the proceedings at Nymegen
eighteen years before, was produced as a precedent, but in vain; it
contained a plan of the room used at Nymegen, showing the arrangement of
seats in it, together with the positions of the doors, windows and
fireplace—for these things may be important in determining which is the
top and which the bottom of a table. A round table was used at Cambray,
Soissons and Aix la Chapelle; but even a round table loses its
accommodating quality when it is discovered that the place of honor is
that opposite the door, and that every place of honor has a right hand
and a left.” A quarrel between two ambassadors’ wives has seriously
interfered with international negotiations, and a coachman’s obstinacy
has added thirty pages to the “Compleate History of the Treaty of
Utrecht.”
MODERN DIPLOMACY—CHARACTER.
It is not to be supposed that modern diplomacy has so completely changed
character as to lose all of its disagreeable features, for there is
still more or less mediaevalism attaching to it—at least if the popular
conception be true. And perhaps in some degree it must always be so; for
the office is unique in its opportunities as well as its inducements to
dissimulate, mislead and misrepresent. In the first place, the diplomat
undertakes his mission under secret instructions. The public may know
what are the duties of the consular service as fully as the consuls
themselves; but not so with the diplomatic service, for to the public it
is a closed door. Moreover, our diplomat may reason with himself that
business of any kind involving competition is a kind of warfare; that
diplomatic business is especially so because it is international, that
there is no penalty for the breaking of an international law, and thus
he may be led to conclude that “all’s fair in love and war”, especially
war.
It may be necessary for some if not all of the members of a legation to
maintain a “discreet inquisitiveness”; it certainly is necessary for all
to know how to meet indiscreet questions with non-committal answers; yet
the finesse of diplomatic intrigue is dangerous ground and British and
American diplomats have, in the main, done well to avoid it. The chief
of a legation especially should remember that his office is a noble one
and should be kept above the stifling air of intrigue; that the dignity
of a nation may easily be compromised by the mere suspicion of
complicity therein, and that to those among whom he moves he both
represents his country officially and typifies his countrymen
personally. The American diplomat has gained something of a reputation
for going straight at the mark—of leaving no doubt as to the attitude of
his government and the policy he is to follow, and is not this the true
diplomacy? The ruling purpose should not be to gain one’s point, but to
preserve the national dignity while using all honorable means to gain
the point.
So much depends upon the manner of a diplomat. Men ordinarily admire and
covet a certain plainness and directness of speech which in business may
amount even to bluntness. But frankness of speech which in any other
occupation might prove only disadvantageous, in diplomacy amounts to a
complete disqualification. In business a diplomat must be all ears and
no tongue until the time comes for him to speak, then he must know
exactly what to say and what not to say. He may feel that every man has
a right to an opinion and to the expression of it, but being a diplomat
he must remember that his opinion will be regarded as official whether
or not he intends it so, and therefore it must be guarded religiously.
In society, somewhat to the contrary, there should be no outward
indication of a studied reserve—nothing that would serve as a restraint
upon his freedom of movement and conversation. He should be a man of
engaging manners, of suave and polite address, and of affability and
urbanity in conversation. He should not only be well trained in the
usages of good society, but should also thoroughly acquaint himself with
the traditional usages and customs, the etiquette of the court where he
is to reside.
ACCEPTABILITY.
Since the principal purpose in sending ambassadors is to secure peace by
cultivating friendly relations with other governments, it is evidently
wise before making an appointment to any country to learn whether the
person whom it is expected to send is acceptable to that country.
Accordingly it is customary before making the appointment public to make
the nomination privately to the foreign government and to express the
hope that it will be found acceptable. Even the nominee knows nothing of
it, and is thus saved the pain of rejection in case that should occur.
If there is no personal objection to the nominee, and if there is no
doubt that his country possesses full sovereignty and is therefore
entitled to send ambassadors, his government is notified of the fact
that he is acceptable; but should there be any objection to him—and
sometimes very trifling ones will suffice—his government is notified
that he is _persona non grata_ (not an agreeable person), and it
proceeds to make other nominations. Not only has the foreign government
the right to reject a nominee but also to demand his recall at any time
if there is any well grounded dissatisfaction with him. One American
ambassador was recalled because complaint was made about his bad
manners.
SOVEREIGNTY OF A STATE.
Since the power to send ambassadors is conditioned upon the sovereignty
of a state we may be pardoned for a glance at international law for the
meaning of sovereignty. The essential attributes of a state are—
(1) Equality—in a legal sense—a small country the equal of a larger
one.
(2) Independence, freedom from all other states.
(3) Sovereignty.
(4) Fixed locality—boundary.
(5) Its people must be organized into a political society.
Woolsey, who mentions the first three only, says that they “cannot exist
apart, and perhaps the single conception of sovereignty, or of
self-protection, may include them all”. It is “the power of entering
into relations with other states and of governing its own subjects”.
Thus it follows that no dependency or colony can send a diplomat of any
rank whatever.
After the appointment of any one to the diplomatic service, the manner
of which will be mentioned later, he must take the oath of allegiance
and is then given a pamphlet of printed instructions by the State
Department. He is furnished with a letter of credence from the President
to the foreign government and is expected to reach his post within a
given time, and to stay there until the expiration of his appointment
unless he is given special permission to leave. Having reached his
destination, he is formally presented to the sovereign, unless he is a
chargé d’affaires, makes calls upon his colleagues, and secures his
exequatur. It is wise to make an early call upon the dean of the
diplomatic body, who is generally the oldest official member of the
diplomatic corps, for instruction as to local customs, ceremonies and
etiquette.
Our government has generally assumed an attitude of indifference to
matters of form and ceremony—an independence which has cost it no little
prestige, and its diplomats a great deal of annoyance. It should be
granted that forms and ceremonies have their place in diplomatic
affairs, and that each court or capital has a right to its own
long-established usages. But we have rather been inclined to turn up our
noses at such foreign nonsense, forgetting that in matters of form there
is sound discretion in the precept, “When in Rome do as the Romans do”.
But the government seems to have cared less for the art of being
agreeable than for the science of being successful, regardless of the
fact that in diplomacy the one is a prerequisite to the other. Two
illustrations of this may be given—the appointment of ambassadors and
the question of a diplomatic uniform.
It is only within the present decade that the United States has begun to
exercise its constitutional right to be represented wherever it chooses
by diplomats of the first rank, i. e., ambassadors. Previously its
highest representatives abroad were diplomats of the second rank, i. e.,
ministers, who though thoroughly competent to handle the business were
simply out-ranked by every ambassador of every second or third rate
power in the world. This we could afford to ignore so far as it is
merely a question of sentiment, but when it compels an American diplomat
after waiting hours for an audience to give place to any ambassador who
happens along, and when it implies an acceptance on our part of a
secondary place among the nations, it is sheer nonsense to continue the
practice. Our reasons were, first an ambassador is supposed to represent
the person of his sovereign, and as we have no sovereign we should have
no ambassadors; and second, the office itself was supposed to involve a
greater outlay of money and a more gorgeous and elaborate display than
was consistent with the simplicity of republican tastes.
As to the diplomatic uniform, which is not the same thing as a court
dress, by the way, the same objections have been urged. The mistake that
we have made is in assuming that “the rule should emanate from home, and
not from abroad”; for while we have an undoubted right to establish our
own customs at our national capital, others might be excused for
thinking us priggish when we attempt to carry those customs abroad,
especially when in defiance of customs in general usage and of long
standing. But so it stands recorded in the statutes, that American
diplomatic officers shall wear no distinguishing uniform; and as a
consequence, at an evening reception in some brilliant foreign capital
you will see the diplomatic corps of other nations appropriately
distinguished, while the American diplomat appears in the costume worn
by the servants and waiters, that is, plain evening dress. What
diplomats sometime complain of in this connection is not the lack of
distinction, but that they are rather unpleasantly distinguished.
PRIVILEGES.
An ambassador enjoys unusual privileges from the time he enters until
the time he leaves the country where he is sent, and these we will now
briefly consider. They have been classified under the heads of
inviolability and exterritoriality, though they may be considered
together.
Inviolability means that “neither public authority nor private persons
can use any force or do any violence to him, without offending against
the law of nations”. Of course if he attempts any violence toward other
individuals he becomes amenable to the local authorities.
Exterritoriality means the right while sojourning in a foreign country
to remain subject to the laws of his own, in both criminal and civil
jurisdiction.
These privileges are granted because it is thought that an ambassador
cannot fully and freely represent his own country if he is liable to be
interfered with by the state to which he is accredited. When carried out
to their practical application some curious results are reached; for
instance—
1. These privileges extend to his goods and his lodgings. “His house is
a sanctuary—except in case of a gross crime—for himself and his
retinue”. His official papers and archives are inviolate. He cannot
shelter any fugitive from law, although even this—the right of
asylum—was at one time general.
2. The courtesy of exemption from taxation is usually extended to
ambassadors, as well as exemption from duties on all necessary articles
of his household.
3. Owing to the inviolability of his property it is hard to collect a
debt from an ambassador when he has a mind not to pay—a thing which has
happened more than once.
4. The right to his own form of worship is granted to an ambassador and
his retinue, even when his religion is not otherwise tolerated by the
laws of the land. In this latter case it is sometimes provided that it
must be simply “house worship—without bell, organ or other sign
indicating to passengers in the street that a chapel is near by”;—“a
native of the country cannot attend”, and the “chaplain must not appear
abroad in his canonicals”.
5. Exemptions from local jurisdiction apply to the secretary of
legation, the chaplain, physician, private secretary and even to
domestic servants. They apply even to domestic servants who are natives
of the country though in a limited degree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Diplomatic Ball
See page 141
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The jurisdiction of an ambassador over the members of his train is
limited to minor matters. A criminal would be sent home for trial, the
ambassador collecting and forwarding all the evidence.
I have purposely deferred the subject of the selection of diplomatic
officers until after a consideration of the service itself, in order
that we may the better understand what is needed in such an officer.
It will be observed that the requirements for a successful diplomat are
wholly unlike those for a consul. To be successful in the consular
service one must first of all be a good business man. One should have a
mind for details, a quick and keen commercial insight, an acquaintance
with the material facts of life, and the proper training would be that
of the merchant or the journalist, supplemented in some cases by that of
the lawyer and jurist. There is a definite, body of information which a
consul should have at his command, a body of rules whose authority he
must not transgress, and in the transaction of his business if he looks
to precedent it is only for present guidance.
The diplomat on the other hand should first of all be a statesman. To
belong to the first rank, along with the greatest in the world, he must
have the gift of prophecy and the grace to keep it quiet. In the pursuit
of a great national ambition he should have wisdom to foresee, genius to
plan and tact to execute. His study is of men, the history and the
political institutions of men, the history and tendencies of his own
times, and the capacities and characteristics of different races. These
things are his science, furnishing the basis for his art, that art which
Bacon called the highest of all—the art of “working” men. He cannot, in
the nature of the case, expect to receive very definite instruction from
his government, unless it be upon a specific line of policy and an
acquaintance with the treaties between the two countries. Precedents are
of value to him as a guide to present action, but more especially as
affecting future policy; for a nation’s foreign policy is influential
among other nations and satisfactory at home in proportion as it is
self-consistent and just. In great international emergencies the
diplomat sometimes does the work of a military chieftain, but with these
differences: his means are peaceful, his warfare is necessarily in
secret, the results are bloodless, and, when all is done, the skill with
which he has fought is seldom recognized except by the historian.
Fortunately the practical problem of choosing men for the diplomatic
service does not contemplate deeds of such momentous character—at least
not for beginners—but it does indicate the magnitude of the scale of
operations sometimes carried on by this service which makes history no
less than do military campaigns. It is evident, moreover, that no course
of study however long can prepare a man for the diplomatic service,
except in an elementary way. It goes without saying that such elementary
preparation should be made before entering the service, and that it
should include among other essentials a knowledge of French, Spanish or
German, especially the first which has been called the language of
diplomacy.
But after all, the only satisfactory preparation for the diplomatic
service is experience. Some years ago the United States began a system,
pursued more or less by other nations, of appointing young men to
various legations as attachés without salary. In this capacity they
became acquainted with diplomats and the “ins and outs” of diplomacy,
and incidentally gave their superiors a chance to discover their fitness
or unfitness for the service. The advantages of such a system, which has
been abandoned except as to the appointment of military and naval
attachés, must be apparent to all, and it is hard to see why it should
not be reinstated.
In the absence of definite training and knowledge to furnish a basis for
examination the diplomatic service is either exceptionally fortunate or
exceptionally unfortunate. As long as the good of the service is kept
chiefly in view in the selection of candidates, even though the service
be regarded as political, it is well that technical knowledge cannot
interfere seriously with the appointment of the most promising
candidate. On the other hand, when the service is regarded as a
legitimate means of rewarding political friends it will suffer all the
more for the want of a restraint such as the examination affords, just
as with the consular service, only in a greater degree.
Diplomatic officers are more apt to change with the change of
administration than are consular officers, for the reason that the
service itself is more political in character. Some authorities go so
far as to justify the change on the ground that the administration ought
to be unrestricted in carrying out its policy, and therefore should be
represented abroad by those of its own political faith just as it is in
the cabinet. It must be admitted that there is a great deal to justify
this contention, but it should be said that the analogy with the
President’s cabinet is hardly fair; for in the latter case the parties
are the units, and we recognize the right of the stronger party to full
executive power; but in the case of the ambassadors the nation is the
unit which he represents, not the party. Theoretically the change of
diplomatic officials with the change of administration cannot be
justified, and practically a sweeping change is certainly demoralizing
to our interests. In the most important positions, however, it may
sometimes be best that the President be allowed to substitute those of
his own party.
With the present system of recruiting the diplomatic service the most
essential point is to lodge the testing power in the hands of capable
and incorruptible men, so that those who are “appointed for examination”
will not necessarily pass because of the influence which supports them.
I will now leave the subject with you, merely remarking in closing that
diplomacy, especially American diplomacy, which lies outside of and
beyond our present theme, is of fascinating interest and will well repay
careful study. Our diplomatic history is brief, but it is glorious,
chiefly because it has made for righteousness and peace, not to
ourselves only but to all the world.
* * * * *
“Professor, will you kindly give the remainder of the articles of the
Congress of Vienna”?
“Certainly. Besides the first and the last which have already been
given, they are as follows:
“Art. II. Ambassadors, legates, or nuncios only have the representative
character; (that is, can represent the person of the sovereign).
“Art. III. Diplomatic agents on an extraordinary mission have not, on
that account, any superiority of rank; (e. g., our commissioners at the
Hague conference would not for that reason outrank our diplomatic
representative there, supposing the latter not to be a commissioner).
“Art. IV. Diplomatic officers shall take precedence in their respective
classes according to the date of the official notification of their
arrival. The present regulation shall not cause any innovation with
regard to the representative of the Pope.
“Art. V. A uniform mode shall be determined in each state for the
reception of diplomatic agents of each class.
“Art. VI. Relations of consanguinity or of family alliance between
courts confer no precedence on their diplomatic agents. The same rule
applies also to political alliances.
“Art. VII. In acts or treaties between several powers which grant
alternate precedence, the order which is to be observed in the
signatures shall be decided by lot between the ministers.”
Q. “Are these the only international rules concerning diplomats”?
A. “They are the only ones given in the Diplomatic and Consular
Register”.
Q. “Are they universally accepted”?
A. “By all except Turkey, which recognizes but three grades—ambassadors,
ministers and chargés d’affaires”.
Q. “Suppose we send a diplomat of the second rank to any country: have
we a right to receive one of the same grade in return”?
A. “Certainly, and no more. Italy, however, sends us an ambassador,
while our representative to Italy is a minister”.
Q. “Professor, you will allow me to disagree with you upon the propriety
of wearing a uniform”?
A. “Certainly, what have you to say”?
Q. “Well, nothing new; it is only that as a people we have taken a
wise stand in favor of simplicity as opposed to meaningless
conventionalities, and that it should characterize all our official
relations with foreign powers, otherwise we would seem to compromise
our position”.
A. “I’ll admit,” said the Professor, “that yours is the view ordinarily
taken and officially adopted in our country. But I still maintain that
it is a wrong view because it is founded upon a wrong principle, namely
that ‘the rule should emanate from home’. Why, suppose you go to visit a
neighbor and you find that the rules of his household are somewhat
unlike your own: would you not as far as possible try to conform to
them? Of course you would; and the complaisance that is to be expected
between neighbors is a duty as between ambassadors, because it is their
business to remove friction, not to create it. Oh, well, these are
trifles and need not be dwelt upon were it not that they are conspicuous
trifles.
“But the mention of these matters of etiquette reminds me of a
suggestion by Schuyler, to the effect that a bureau of ceremonies should
be added to the State Department—just as in Paris there is a Service du
Protocol—both to facilitate its correspondence and to serve as an
intermediary between the Department and foreign diplomats in Washington.
There are many reasons—small in themselves, but rather weighty taken
together, why this suggestion is worth heeding. The Master of Ceremonies
plays a very important as well as a conspicuous part in nearly every
capital except Washington; and perhaps he is all the more necessary with
us because we have so little ceremony”.
After dismission a group of ladies was observed in earnest conversation
waiting for a word with the Professor, who soon advanced with: “Do you
wish to speak to me”?
“Oh, we were just wondering”, said one of them, “why women wouldn’t make
good ambassadors”.
“They do”, said the Professor, “and excellent ones, too, for women are
generally diplomats both by nature and training”.
“I never heard of one’s being appointed”.
“No, it is always her husband that is appointed; but this is dangerous
ground. It is a fact well known in the service that a discreet wife can
almost double her husband’s efficiency. In the first place she hears as
much gossip as he does—as much, I say—and if she can keep it, why that
is the best way that a diplomat can learn what is going on. But aside
from court gossip, a great deal of an ambassador’s influence depends
upon his position in society and this in turn depends very much upon the
kind of wife he has. An indiscreet wife, one who is over fond of gossip,
or under fond of society, might be a positive disqualification for the
best kind of ambassador. It should go without saying that the wife
should be patriotic; only sometimes diplomats will marry abroad. On this
point Schuyler says that Bismarck always insisted that German diplomats
should marry German wives. Women are very important social factors at
every capital, and even sovereigns find that they are to be reckoned
with. A good story is told by Schuyler which illustrates this fact and
which shows at the same time what diplomacy can do in small things. I
give it as nearly as I recall in his words:
“The court of Vienna is bound by very strict rules of etiquette, which
not even the Emperor feels at liberty to overstep. And the society of
Vienna has adopted still stricter ones. In order for an Austrian lady to
be able to appear at court, she must show at least four generations of
nobility. It is said that some years ago when the first bourgeois
ministers were appointed in Austria, while they were officially invited
to a court ball, their wives were omitted. The ladies were indignant and
brought a sufficient pressure to bear upon the husbands to induce them
to resign their offices if their wives were not invited to the ball. The
Emperor was in a dilemma, for he could not dispense with such useful
ministers, neither could he override the rules of court etiquette. He
adopted, however, a very simple expedient—he ennobled the long-deceased
great-grandfathers of the ladies in question, which thus gave them the
personal right to appear”.
“Have diplomats nothing better to do than simply to get along peaceably
with each other”?
“It must be confessed that in spite of the grand part they are expected
to play upon occasion, a large share of their time and attention is
devoted to the art of being agreeable—not a mean art in its way, though
it demands attention to trifles after a fashion that would be
exasperating to some minds.”
“Then I understand that it is in this exasperating art, the minor
tactics of diplomacy, that women have the credit of excelling”?
“It is in this that they certainly do excel; and indeed in major tactics
or world politics one need not ask for a better diplomat for her day and
her nation than ‘Good Queen Bess’, not to mention other illustrious
examples”.
“Well”, said one of the ladies, as they turned to go, “since to be an
ambassador a woman must either be born one or marry one, why we might as
well settle down to minor tactics where we are; so have a care,
Professor, for we may not have learned the art of being agreeable”.
[Illustration: PRECEDENCE]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: Man looking at large map on desktop]
LECTURE
V
UNCLE SAM AND EXPANSION.
Uncle Sam has lately gone abroad after an entirely new fashion—new at
least to him.
He went to Hawaii only after repeated and urgent invitation; hesitating
because he thought it was against his principles.
He went to Cuba to help the people to get rid of their rubbish.
He went to Porto Rico because he thought that he was needed.
He went to the Philippines on a business trip, and is there yet. He will
probably make up his mind to stay there though he is still halting a
little. In less than a year he will have decided, and in the meantime he
will do some hard thinking about it, just as he has been doing since May
1, 1898.
It is to this problem that we will now address ourselves—for it is still
a problem with some—not to questions of method in administration, which
should be determined by experience, but to the ethical, political and
practical considerations involved in the term expansion, or if you
please, imperialism.
First of all, the occupation of the Philippines by the United States is
regarded by the average American citizen as a moral question. “Is it
right to extend our authority over the Philippines, even, if necessary,
by force of arms”? This is the question we all have been asking
ourselves, the question that the “anti-imperialists” have promptly
answered in the negative, while the great majority of opinion seems to
be slowly swinging in the opposite direction, in agreement with the
present administration.
But the answer to this question, startling as it may seem, is that it is
not primarily an ethical question, whatever ethical phases it may have.
“What,” you ask, “do not all governments derive their just powers from
the consent of the governed?” Well, let us see about that; and in order
to see clearly and dispassionately let us get outside of America as it
were, so that we may look at this proposition from a convenient
distance.
People sometimes make mistakes. Whole nations sometimes make the same
mistake. Indeed, on a fundamental proposition a whole civilization
during successive periods of history covering many centuries has been
known to swing from one extreme to the other and backward again. Such
movements are often likened to the swing of a mighty pendulum, or better
still, to the rising and narrowing coils of a spiral.
Naturally, one of the subjects upon which men have thought the most and
disagreed the most and therefore made the most mistakes is the relation
of the individual to the state. Less than three centuries ago one of the
fundamental maxims of government was that the individual exists for the
state and not the state for the individual. This is one extreme. Up to
the time of Rousseau there was no marked philosophical change upon this
subject on the continent of Europe. With him and those after him began
that marvelous reaction—that tidal wave of philosophic thought and
popular conviction away from absolutism and in the direction of the
rights of man. If this movement should reach its climax in the opposite
extreme it would mean anarchy—and that is what it reached in the French
Revolution.
It was but a few years before its climax, however, that our own
Declaration of Independence was written, the writers whereof were
thoroughly in sympathy with the movement toward the rights of man. Hence
we hear in America the calm statement, “We believe that all men are by
nature free and equal”, while in France we hear the frenzied cry,
“Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!”
The individual has at last secured his long coveted freedom. But it is
only to be confronted with a still greater question, namely: What is he
to do with his freedom? How is he to use it?
Well, what has he done with it? In America, as elsewhere,
notwithstanding his political creed, he has wisely decided that the
insane must not enjoy either freedom or equality with other men. No more
can criminals; no more do women. Why? If all have a right to these
things, who dares take it away?
This brings us to a point beyond the statement of the Declaration, a
point, however, that must have been in the minds of the writers, namely,
that
SELF-GOVERNMENT IS NOT SO MUCH A RIGHT AS IT IS A CAPACITY.
Have you a right to vote, and if so where did you get it? You may answer
these questions just as you please; but the fact is, if you go insane or
commit a crime the government takes away your right to vote because of
your incapacity. You are assumed to have the capacity and therefore the
right unless it is proved to the contrary; but let it not be forgotten
that the capacity is fundamental and antecedent to the right, otherwise
our theory will always seem inconsistent with our practice.
And that is what mystifies so many of us just now. We have made no
mistake in our practice, but we have made a mistake in trying to justify
the practice by an unfounded theory, and it doesn’t work. We as a nation
have simply been idealizing the rights of man, liberty and
self-government, forgetting that these are all secondary to capacity,
just as did the eighteenth century doctrinaires.
So far with the analogy. Now, can any one give a good, valid reason why
the same conclusions would not apply to a community or tribe or race
within a state which is held to be incapable—the Indians, for instance,
or the emancipated slaves? Certainly not. Now, is there any ethical
reason why the same conclusions would not apply to an incompetent
nation? Certainly not. The difficulty to be encountered is a practical
one, because, first, there is no international court to decide upon the
capacity of a race to govern itself, and, second, there is no
international power to act as guardian for incompetent or backward
races.
How is it with the family of nations to-day? A few of them are forging
ahead at a marvelous rate, a good many more are like Micawber’s wife,
continually _in statu quo_, while others still are suffering a
noticeable decline, and finally there are races or tribes which have
never been organized into states or nations, and which if left to
themselves probably never will be. And to what shall we liken this
family of nations? It is like a settlement beyond the frontier of
civilization, with no law above them except a neighborhood agreement—a
settlement made up of a few progressive men, a number of “ne’er do
weels”, several idiots and insane and a number of dissolutes. The best
that one could hope for in such a situation would be for the progressive
men to infuse some life and energy into the “ne’er do weels”, remove all
destructive agencies from the hands of the idiots and insane and put the
dissolutes under watch and ward. Instead, however, the state of things
that we actually see is this: the dissolutes are rebellious, the idiots
are idiots, the “ne’er do weels” are suspicious, and worst of all, the
progressive men are jealous of each other. In the absence of
cohesiveness and harmony in this settlement, one of these progressive
men has shown a disposition sometimes domineering, sometimes kindly, but
a disposition nevertheless to maintain law and order, and a fondness for
having a hand in enforcing it, and that man is Mr. Anglo-Saxon. He never
puts his hand to this business without calling down the imprecations of
the whole neighborhood upon himself as a tyrant, and yet freedom,
prosperity and progress go with him. He doesn’t believe much in passive
goodness. He has learned the lesson of self-government and he proposes
to teach it to his less progressive neighbors whether or no; and when
they have once learned it they may stay under his protection or not,
just as they please, and the significant fact is that they are not only
glad to stay but to fight for him when they have once learned his idea
of freedom.
A fanatic may say, “I prefer my own government, not because it is the
best, but because it is mine”. That may well be as between two
progressive nations, but as between a progressive and a retrograde or
incompetent government, it is sheer fanaticism. It avails nothing in
such a case to quote the words of Lincoln: “No man is good enough to
govern another man against that other man’s consent”, for these words
were uttered concerning human bondage which is by no means analogous to
a loss of independence by a state. Canada has no political independence,
technically, but are Canadians in bondage? Are the Australians, the
Hindus, the Egyptians, in bondage?
No nation has a right to remain in the backwoods (pardon the homely
expression). The facilities for travel and inter-communication are so
vastly improved the “double coincidence of wants and possessions” has
become so general, the bar of language, custom, religion and race is so
rapidly disappearing—in a word, the nations of the earth are becoming
such near neighbors to each other that each must be personally
interested, so to speak, in the welfare of the others. If a man’s
nearest neighbors are some miles distant, the way they get their living
or govern their households may be of small interest to him; but let them
move up to adjoining lots and it makes a world of difference whether
their business is reputable, and whether their households are quiet and
orderly.
No nation is safe when it remains in the backwoods. When two races, a
more civilized and a less civilized, come into close quarters as
neighbors the latter must improve or go to the wall. And this is not so
much a moral as it is a physical question; for an area of land that will
support one hunter will support a hundred farmers, and nature is
economic in this as in every other matter. It is not so much that the
weak must yield to the strong as it is that the ineffectual must give
way to the effectual—just the ordinary law of evolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
“No Nation has a right
to remain
in the backwoods”
See page 169.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like all natural laws it is merciless; and being a natural law it is
neither to be condemned nor justified; yet again, like other natural
laws, its rigor may and should be mitigated. In short, the superior race
should regard the inferior much as a schoolmaster does an intractable
youth, who must be dealt with kindly and patiently, admonished
repeatedly and perhaps punished severely.
No nation has a right to remain in the backwoods. A country that shuts
its eyes to progress in other lands, a people whose all-sufficient
answer is, “What was good enough for our fathers is good enough for us”,
a nation which stands for tyranny, for corruption, for instability, for
retrogression, of any sort, has no one to blame but itself when the
widening breach which separates it from advancing civilization is closed
with a violence that destroys its identity.
[Illustration: A MENACE.]
An unstable government is a standing menace to all neighboring
governments. It is the rottenness of Turkey, more than the cupidity of
the powers, that constantly endangers the peace of Europe. It was the
rottenness of Spanish colonial administration and not our own cupidity,
that brought on the Spanish war. It is the turbulence of the South
American republics rather than their weakness, that in spite of the
protection of the Monroe doctrine may yet invite European intervention.
The culpability of the incompetent powers is a theme we hear much less
about than the “rapacity” of the “harpy powers”—and why? Because of that
childish tendency to take the part of the “under dog”, no matter whose
the fault.
It would seem a necessary conclusion, therefore, that whenever a people
demonstrates its incapacity to learn self-government by its own unaided
effort, or whenever from any cause its civilization is far in the rear
of the times, that the best interests both of itself and of the rest of
humanity demand that it be placed under a governmental pedagogue, at
least until it attains its majority. And this is no less true though the
people rebel and many lives be lost, provided that it means progress for
the race—“the greatest good to the greatest number”. Who would claim
that Egypt would be better off without the wise guidance of England, or
who now counts the lives that were lost in India in the establishment of
her beneficent reign?
Hence, not all governments derive their just powers from the consent of
the governed, for this sublime statement of the Declaration applies to
those only who are fit for self-government. We hold it now as we always
have held it, a governmental ideal which we mean to realize; for in
practice we never have followed it in our dealings with the Indians, and
we never made a greater mistake than in following it too literally in
the days of “reconstruction”.
It should be observed that the Philippine question, coming upon us as it
did, all unlooked for and unsought, made our duty all the more
unmistakable. No time was given to judge of the capacity of the people
for self-government, nor to ask whether ours was the nation to assume
sovereignty. We were simply confronted with a situation. The logic of
events (or shall we not say the hand of Providence?) had placed upon us
a responsibility which, whether desirable or undesirable, we could not
shirk. We stood sponsor to the world for the islands, the sovereignty
over which we had destroyed. As a question of international law there
could be no doubt of our sovereignty.
“But”, says the anti-imperialist, “this is ignoring the rights of the
inhabitants”, and then he proceeds in academic fashion to solve the
whole problem by a very simple syllogism, thus:
Major premise—All just government is founded upon the consent of the
governed.
Minor premise—The natives of the Philippines are in need of a just
government.
Conclusion—The Philippines should be left to take care of themselves.
And this pleasant bit of sophistry actually passes for argument among
those who do not stop to see the gaps in it—who do not reflect that a
government is a growth, and not a mere artificial structure to be
erected by inexperienced hands—who do not reflect that something is due
to international comity, and that the nations would certainly have to be
reckoned with in the advent of a new power—and finally, who will not
give candid consideration to the unanimous testimony of such men as
Schurman, Worcester, Denby, Otis and Dewey to the effect that “no tie of
race, religion, sympathy or common interest of any kind holds the
natives together or justifies a belief in their capacity for
self-government”!
But other objections are raised against American occupation of the
Philippines. It is alleged that it is contrary to our traditional
policy; that it is in disregard of the advice of Washington to “avoid
entangling alliances”; that it sacrifices our “splendid isolation”, and
makes us more vulnerable to a foreign enemy.
All these objections—if objections they are—must be met by a frank
admission. But it is worth while to inquire into their validity as
objections—to see whether they should have as much weight henceforth as
they have had in the past; for we must all see very plainly that the
policy of “expansion” involves a radical change in our world relations—a
change somewhat at variance with our historic policy.
Let me not be misunderstood when I say that a certain reserve (to use no
stronger term) has always characterized our government—not our citizens,
mind you, but our government—that we have exhibited toward the “Old
World” such an attitude as, who should say—“We have come out into this
New World to escape the tyranny of the Old. We have explored it,
conquered it, settled it, and then won our independence from the Old. We
consider our land and its government peculiarly suited to become the
‘land of the free and the home of the brave’—‘a home for the oppressed
of all nations’. We intend to stay at home and not meddle in your
affairs, and we expect you to do the same”.
An attitude such as this is just what one would expect in the light of
colonial and revolutionary history. But there is another—a politic
reason: a weak power with a flattering prospect of becoming a great one
is just such a prize as would tempt the cupidity of stronger powers;
hence it would desire nothing so much as to be let alone. Such a power
should above all things “avoid entangling alliances”—keep to itself
until its strength is developed. Such a power we were when those words
were uttered, and such we remained as long as the schism of slavery
existed, so that never did we realize our full, united strength until
called into action against Spain. Up to the present, then, Washington’s
advice has proved sound policy.
What then; are we about to abandon it? No, but we are about to abandon a
perverted interpretation of it and that, too, not so much from choice as
from necessity. We are beginning to see that a measure of prudence for a
weak power is by no means equally wise when that power has grown strong.
We are beginning to see, also, that a false interpretation of it has
somehow become common, which would confine our activities, save in a
commercial way, to our own boundaries. It somehow assumes that we are as
large and influential now as we were ever intended to be; that our
future development is to be altogether internal.
To admit the truth of this—to admit that there is a limit to the area of
our country beyond which it is imprudent to go, to admit that our
country, being a republic, cannot consistently possess or successfully
administer any foreign territory, whether detached points of military
and commercial importance or portions of mainland—to admit all this is
to admit the inability of our government to hold its own with the best.
The “government” in England is no less democratic than the
“administration” in America, and yet England leads the world in
colonization.
Expansion in its broadest sense is not new. It is as old, almost, as the
government itself. We have merely come to the point of extending its
application to other lands, as England has long been doing, and that,
too, at a time when rapid transit and communication have simplified the
task inconceivably. The policy of expansion was in the air in
1893—though it had not yet received a name—when the weight of public
opinion demanded of our executive that the Hawaiian Islands should not
be restored to an incompetent queen. Americans have not yet forgotten
their chagrin, nor how European diplomats laughed at the spectacle of
the “Great Republic”, wanting so much to do the thing it ought while
imagining that its hands were tied by the stay-at-home tradition. This
same timidity or reticence or reserve or self-distrust or
self-satisfaction, call it by whichever term you choose, has already
lost for us the Samoan Islands (save one), Hayti and other strategic
points.
There is some gratification to be sure in being able to show the world,
as we have done, an example of a country which is not grasping for
territory—which can even reject a point of advantage offered by the
inhabitants thereof, feeling that the sacrifice of territory is better
for us than the sacrifice of the principle of self-government for them.
But in neither Samoa nor Hayti has the subsequent history of those
places justified our rejection of them, either for their sake or our
own. Moreover as far as its influence on the world is concerned it seems
to have failed of its effect, if one may judge by the accusation of
avarice that assailed us at the outbreak of the Spanish war.
It took more than the Philippine question, more than the Spanish war, to
inaugurate the policy of “expansion”. These merely furnished the
occasion for that toward which the progress of the world was leading us.
To put it in a word—we have expanded because our “splendid isolation” is
gone, rather than that our isolation is gone because we have expanded;
and our isolation is gone because of the progress of the world.
The great international factors of to-day, bringing the nations into
common markets and common councils, pouring the commerce, news,
literature, customs, life, of each into all the others, are the
steamship and the cable. These have done more for America, probably,
than for any other nation; for more than any other agency they have
destroyed her isolation. But they have done even more than that; for
they have made her virtually central.
It was customary a few years ago—is yet in some quarters—to speak of the
Pacific Ocean as if it were the backyard of the globe. It was imagined
by one devout geographer that the hand of an all-wise Providence could
be seen in arranging it so that the most civilized countries of the
earth front upon the same ocean—the Atlantic. But the improvement of the
steamship is equivalent to the reduction of distance, and this added to
the establishment of bases of traffic virtually narrows the Pacific down
to a smaller ocean than the Atlantic used to be. Thus America, between
the great manufacturing centers of Europe and the greatest of markets in
Asia, with the best of pathways to each, seems destined to become the
central market of the world; and with the Nicaragua canal severing the
Isthmus and the cable crossing the Pacific her position will be made all
the more central as well as defensible.
As a mere matter of policy, why should we not adopt expansion? Who ever
knew a recluse of a nation to attain to national greatness of any kind,
or to send forth leaders of men? In such a nation one inevitable result
must be the provincializing and sectionalizing of men and measures,
until breadth of statesmanship and catholicity of sympathy are unknown.
Americans may well profit by contrasting the statesmanship of her
consuls and diplomats abroad with that of certain leaders at home. The
former, accustomed to view the national policy from without are
practically unanimous so far as they have expressed themselves in urging
that we come out of our seclusion. “Happily”, says one, “such an ideal
is as impossible as it is ignoble and retrograde. Impelled by
irresistible forces we are already beginning to look outward, and are
preparing to take the high place among the nations to which our strength
entitles us. We should be unworthy members of the stout-hearted race to
which we belong if we were daunted by the dangers and burdens of the
wider activities upon which we are entering”.
The matter of greatest concern in the policy of expansion is, after all,
not financial or political gain, but the reflex influence upon the
individual citizen, and here we can only speculate. It is alleged on the
one hand that expansion offers opportunities for corruption such as we
never have known in municipal misgovernment, that it will lodge power in
the hands of officials at a distance from those to whom they are
responsible, that our treatment of inferior races at home does not
justify our undertaking the same thing abroad, and that it is downright
hypocrisy for us, a democratic people, to attempt the government of any
other people.
There are certain defects common to all of these objections. It should
be noticed, in the first place, that they seize upon the most
conspicuous features of misgovernment in America as if they were
typical, and consequently the very thing to be expected in foreign
service; secondly, they indicate a pessimistic distrust of men—a
distrust masquerading as prudence and conservatism—which is neither
justified by the sum of the facts nor is it healthful for those who urge
them; thirdly, they assume the equal right of all men to govern
themselves regardless of capacity.
It should be noticed, moreover, that, as a rule, officers who receive
their positions by appointment are held more strictly to account than
are those who are elected by ballot; for the latter are not as apt to be
removed for inefficiency or corruption as the former. Besides they have
the machine back of them instead of the people or the President. Hence,
since officers for the foreign administrative service would necessarily
be chosen by the administration, as are those in the consular and
diplomatic service, it is not too much to expect even a better
government for the dependencies than for ourselves—however strange it
may seem to say so.
It should be noticed again that good government is more likely to be the
rule than the exception in our dependencies for the following reasons:
First, oppression, or misgovernment of any kind, does not pay. As has
often been pointed out, this is the one great lesson that England
learned in the Revolutionary War, and she has made good use of it ever
since. The primary object, first, last and always, must be the welfare
of the dependency; otherwise it is all a hypocritical delusion,
containing nothing so good as the seeds of its own destruction. Second,
American pride in what Americans can do will not accept any but the best
results, especially when nearly all the world is looking on
distrustfully.
Third, the one race which by common consent has best solved the problem
of self-government is the Anglo-Saxon, and the Philippines are to be
congratulated upon being under its instruction.
It should be noticed that there are reasons for believing that instead
of having a harmful influence upon the American commonwealth the
influence of expansion will be healthful. Corruption in politics is
generally a direct result of the indifference of the citizen, an
indifference arising from an unwarranted sense of security. The citizen
must learn to feel that he has now an added responsibility, a deeper
obligation to humanity to make his own government as pure as possible;
for the idea of expansion involves an assumption of superiority upon our
part—an assumption that we must make good in every particular. Lynch law
and municipal corruption must cease altogether; for we have given
ourselves to the world as an example not only of good government, but of
good self-government, and we cannot afford that even occasional
exceptions shall be tolerated. We should have more politicians, not
fewer—so that scoundrels could find no room in the business.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
“Splendid Isolation”
See page 179
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, our newly assumed responsibilities will have the effect of
developing and training in leadership. It is a most significant lesson
to Americans that this practical training of leaders and rulers of men
has enabled England, according to some writers, to make such great
advancement in municipal government.
Some notice is due to the objection that these outlying possessions
render us more vulnerable in case of war; that because of their wide
separation and the enormous increase of coast line the task of defense
will be greatly augmented. This is evidently true; and it is no less
true and no less evident that in the same ratio will our means of
defense be augmented; for the fighting of the future will be naval more
and more as the years go by; and naval warfare demands, first, a navy,
and, second, bases of operation.
But a navy is expensive both to create and to maintain, and our new
policy will demand a largely increased navy and an enormous outlay of
money. Yes, but this has long been needed by our foreign commerce, and
the lack of it for this purpose has been disastrous. A nation whose
merchants pay out half a million dollars every day for transportation in
foreign vessels (I quote the words of the chief engineer of the navy),
certainly ought to do all in its power to encourage its own merchant
marine, at least by furnishing adequate protection. Think of it! a half
a million saved every day would build a $3,000,000 battleship in one
week. Why, we paid out enough in pensions in one year to build
twenty-five such vessels. This ought to suggest to every one that “an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. Hence, though a navy is
expensive, it is still more so to do without one.
But, you say, we are incurring a vast expense in subduing and
controlling the country, and apparently there is no income to balance
it. Add to all this the $20,000,000 conceded by the Treaty of Paris, and
don’t you think it a rather poor investment?
Here again let us seek our answer from the experience of England in
Egypt and in India. In both of these countries her outlay of money
originally was enormous, and from neither of them does she now receive a
penny of revenue. She taxes them to be sure, but the taxes are spent for
the local administration—none for England. It is from trade with these
countries—the greater because of her greater prestige—trade which is of
mutual benefit, that England derives any revenue whatsoever, but that is
enormous. Yet she does not forbid other nations to trade with them nor
place any obstacle in their way. She has had simply the advantage of
greater prestige and commercial ability.
Finally one other objection must be noticed and that is the
constitutional objection. As to the merits of this question, let
constitutional lawyers decide; but if the country has been expanding
ever since it began, and all the arguments of statesmen, big and little,
have not prevented it from expanding, it would seem to be not so much a
constitutional question as it is one of national policy and
international law. At any rate the constitution was made for America and
not America for the constitution; and while it is one of the ablest of
documents, nobody considers it faultless or supposes it ever could be.
James Bryce in a burst of enthusiasm says of us: “Such a people could
work any constitution”.
It is impossible to speak in so short a time of all the points involved
in expansion, or even of the one case we have been considering, the
details of which we can well afford to omit, if it is justified by
political, international, commercial and especially ethical
considerations.
We will now listen to questions.
* * * * *
As soon as the opportunity was given there were several ready to take
advantage of it, and the questions came fast and furious—almost.
“Professor”, said one, “it seems to me that I see several
inconsistencies in your position. You will not mind my saying so?”
“Certainly not. Proceed.”
“In the first place, you say that a government is a ‘growth’, and yet
you would impose the authority of our government upon the Philippines.
Why not give their government a chance to grow?”
“Very good; but suppose instead of resulting in a growth the Philippine
attempt proves abortive, as we have every reason to suppose that it
would? You seem to assume that growth must result necessarily; but an
egg is more likely to spoil than to hatch when left without protection,
and so it has proved with republics. The trouble with you theorizers is
that you begin at the wrong end in building up your Philippine republic.
You begin at the top, the general government, the president and
legislature, instead of beginning at the bottom, the precinct or
township. To be sure the need of a general government is imperative and
immediate, but things never grow in that way. Now, what do we propose to
do in the Philippines? We propose to substitute our own power for the
general government while the real government is growing up among the
people. In all self-government life begins at the extremities, not at
the center.”
“And do you propose to withdraw as soon as it has attained full growth?”
“We propose to let that question alone until full growth has been
attained. It is quite unlikely that the American people will ever care
to impose their government upon an unwilling people who are abundantly
able to take care of themselves. It is much more likely when that time
shall come, that as a Filipino has expressed it, ‘the Filipinos will be
better Americans than the Americans themselves’, just like the English
colonists in their loyalty to the mother country”.
“That is all very well; but I still discover some assumptions in your
answers. In the first place you assume that the Filipinos are incapable
of organizing a government for themselves, and in the second place you
assume that we Americans will be entirely disinterested in maintaining
our authority over them. If you can satisfy me upon these points I will
accept all you have said.”
“I am sorry I can’t prove everything, and must therefore make some
assumptions”, said the Professor, “but as to the first I shall simply
refer you to the testimony of those who know them best, which to me is
conclusive upon this point. But the point itself is secondary to our
international obligation to re-establish law and order. As to the second
assumption, again I have little to say, though there is much to be said.
I am happy to believe not only in the general efficiency of our
government, particularly the general or Federal government, but also in
its integrity of character and the honesty of its administration.”
“Professor”, said another man, “I suppose I am what you would call a
fanatic; for I am foolish enough to prefer my own government simply
because it is mine and not because it is the best.”
“You may be uninformed rather than fanatical, my friend. Did you ever
live any length of time in Central or South America?”
“No.”
“Well, suppose you go down to Nicaragua, or Venezuela, or Colombia, or
Hayti for four or five years; then when you come back—that is if you
come back alive—count up the annual and semi-annual revolutions you have
seen, and then tell us what you think about it. Don’t you see that you
are getting the sentiment of patriotism and the science of government
somewhat mixed. You may love your country all you will and independently
of its government, but the only justification for the latter should be
its efficiency—efficiency in securing life, liberty and justice to all.”
“I should like to ask a question”, said another man.
“Very well.”
“I should like to know how you would prove that the Anglo-Saxon is the
one race which by common consent has best solved the problem of
self-government.”
“Let me refer you for your answer to ‘Anglo-Saxon Superiority’ by Edward
Demolin, a gifted French writer; also for the influence of the British
and the American constitutions let me refer you to the history of almost
any legislative body in the world. I think this last reference in itself
is sufficient.”
“It seems to me, Professor, that your frequent references to England,
especially at this time, are rather unfortunate, if you will allow me
the liberty to say so; for a country with so shady a reputation as hers,
cannot be held up for admiration. Will not your advocacy of expansion
suffer from such an unsavory comparison?”
“Perhaps”, said the Professor, “I may be pardoned for departing so far
from the subject of the evening as to reply to your criticism, since it
leads up to the answer to your question.
“Has England a ‘shady reputation’? Certainly, among those who are
jealous of her, and everybody outside of Anglo-Saxon sovereignty has
good reason to be jealous of her. But is there no better foundation for
this reputation than mere jealousy? Certainly; in her dealings with
Ireland, in the early days in India, and in her treatment of the
American colonists her policy was sometimes uninformed, sometimes unwise
and even cruel and oppressive, and her historians offer no defense for
it. Has she displayed unusual cruelty in her conquests? By no means; she
has displayed such unusual activity in colonization—in doing police duty
for the world, in substituting intelligent force for misdirected force,
that as a natural result she is disliked by a great many people. It is
not to be supposed that her purposes in colonization have always been
unselfish—perhaps they never have been so; but her purposes and methods
in administration are unselfish, and thus she has taught the world the
secret that Rome failed to find—how to knit together a great colonial
empire.
“You speak of the present unfortunate Transvaal war. So far as this
bears upon your question I have only this to say; my sympathies are with
the English, because, disregarding the merits of the original
controversy, about which none of us who read both sides dare be
positive, the English are our own kindred; and because we could never
forgive ourselves if we were to forget the noble, generous and fraternal
part that England played in 1898, the consequences of which she is now
suffering in the hostility to the Anglo-Saxon. I do not dismiss the
original controversy because it is unimportant—for the question of right
or wrong far outweighs all other considerations—but in the conflict of
opinions and the appeals to passion the American, it seems to me, should
dismiss all; and if he feels that he must take sides, he will find that
the considerations of race, national interest and national gratitude, as
well as the greater probability of just government, are all on the side
of the British arms.
“And now as to the point of your question: England can scarcely be held
up to us as a ‘horrible example’ of what is likely to happen to a nation
which allows itself to expand, because at the very worst the example
isn’t sufficiently horrible. But more than that, our acquisitions have
all come to us peacefully and gladly, except one fifth of the Filipinos,
and our whole course has been singularly devoid of mistakes, and I can
imagine that in the future this period, safely passed, will be regarded
as one of the most brilliant and successful in our history.”
[Illustration: THE END.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX.
SYNOPSIS OF COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
Key:
A: “Most-Favored-Nation” Clause.
B: Inviolability of Consular Archives.
C: Inviolability of Consular Office and Dwelling.
D: Exemption from Arrest.
E: Exemption from Obligation to Appear as a Witness.
F: Exemption from Taxation.
G: Exemption from Military and Public Service.
H: Procedure in Infraction of Treaties—Correspondence.
I: Use of National Arms and Flag on Consular Office and Dwelling.
J: Right to Take Depositions.
K: Jurisdiction Over Disputes Between Masters, Officers, and Crew.
L: Right to Reclaim Deserters.
M: Jurisdiction Over Salvage and Wrecks.
N: Right to Take Charge of Deceased Citizens’ Effects.
O: Extradition of Criminals.
P: Judicial Powers.
NOTE.—For explanation of this table, see following pages.
═══════════╤═══╤═══╤═══╤═══╤═══╤═══╤═══╤═══╤═══╤═══╤═══╤═══╤═══╤═══╤═══╤══
│ A │ B │ C │ D │ E │ F │ G │ H │ I │ J │ K │ L │ M │ N │ O │P
───────────┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼──
Argentina │ † │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │.
Austria- │ † │ † │ . │ ‡ │ ‡ │ § │ § │ † │ ‡ │ † │ † │ † │ † │ ‡ │ † │.
Hungary │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Belgium │ † │ † │ † │ † │ ‡ │ § │ § │ † │ ‡ │ † │ † │ † │ † │ ‡ │ ¶ │.
Bolivia │ † │ † │ † │ . │ . │ § │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ † │ . │ . │.
Borneo │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ . │ . │†
China │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ . │ . │†
Colombia │ † │ † │ . │ . │ . │ § │ † │ † │ ‡ │ † │ † │ † │ † │ ‡ │ ¶ │.
Costa Rica │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ ‡ │ . │.
Denmark │ † │ † │ . │ . │ . │ § │ † │ . │ . │ . │ † │ † │ . │ . │ . │.
Dominican │ † │ † │ . │ . │ . │ § │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ † │ † │ . │ ¶ │.
Republic │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Ecuador │ † │ † │ . │ . │ . │ § │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ † │ . │ ¶ │.
Egypt │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ § │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │.
France │ † │ † │ † │ ‡ │ ‡ │ § │ § │ † │ † │ † │ † │ † │ † │ . │ . │.
Germany │ † │ † │ † │ † │ . │‡§ │ § │ † │ ‡ │ † │ † │ † │ † │ ‡ │ . │.
Great │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ . │ . │ † │.
Britain │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Greece │ . │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ † │ † │ . │ . │.
Guatemala │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ . │ . │.
Hanseatic │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ . │ . │ . │.
Republic │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Hayti │ † │ † │ . │ . │ . │ § │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ † │ . │ . │.
Honduras │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ ‡ │ . │.
Italy │ † │ . │ † │ † │ ‡ │ § │ § │ † │ ‡ │ † │ † │ † │ † │ ‡ │ ¶ │.
Japan │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ † │ . │ ¶ │.
Kongo Free │ † │ † │ † │ † │ . │ § │ § │ † │ ‡ │ † │ † │ † │ . │ . │ . │.
State │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Korea │ † │ . │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ . │ . │†
Liberia │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ . │ . │.
Madagascar │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ † │ . │ . │†
Maskat │ . │ † │ † │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ † │ . │†
Morocco │ † │ . │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ † │ . │†
Netherlands│ † │ † │ . │ † │ ‡ │ § │ § │ † │ ‡ │ † │ † │ † │ † │ ‡ │ ¶ │.
Nicaragua │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ ‡ │ ¶ │.
Orange Free│ † │ † │ . │ . │ . │ § │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ ¶ │.
State │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Ottoman │ . │ . │ . │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ . │ ¶ │†
Empire │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Paraguay │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ ‡ │ . │.
Persia │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ § │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ . │†
Peru │ † │ † │ . │ . │ . │ § │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ . │ † │ . │.
Portugal │ † │ † │ . │ . │ . │ § │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ † │ . │ . │ . │.
Prussia │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │.
Roumania │ † │ † │ † │ ‡ │ ‡ │ § │ † │ ‡ │ † │ † │ † │ † │ † │ ‡ │ . │.
Russia │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ § │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ † │ . │ . │ ¶ │.
Salvador │ † │ † │ † │ . │ ‡ │ § │ † │ † │ † │ † │ † │ † │ † │ † │ ¶ │.
Samoan │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │†
Islands │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Servia │ † │ † │ † │ † │ ‡ │ § │ † │ ‡ │ † │ † │ . │ . │ . │ ‡ │ . │.
Siam │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ † │ . │ ¶ │†
Spain │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ . │ ¶ │.
Sweden and │ . │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ † │ † │ . │ ¶ │.
Norway │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Switzerland│ † │ † │ . │ . │ . │ § │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ ¶ │.
Tripoli │ † │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ . │ † │ † │ . │†
Tunis │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ . │ † │ † │ . │†
───────────┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴──
EXPLANATION OF PRECEDING TABLE
Whenever a sign of any kind appears in the preceding synopsis it means
that there is a proviso in our treaty with that country touching more or
less definitely upon the subject indicated. The sign (†) means that the
subject is covered by the proviso or nearly so; a (‡) means that it is
modified in some measure; a (§) means that it applies only to American
citizens in the consular service, not to foreigners, and a (¶) means
that the requisitions for the extradition of criminals may be made
“through the superior consular officer; otherwise through the diplomatic
service.” A blank space means that the point is not touched upon by any
treaty now in force.
This synopsis of our commercial treaties shows at a glance their
relative fullness or deficiency, and the most remarkable thing about it
is their deficiency. Sometimes, it is true, by virtue of international
comity, much larger discretion is exercised by consuls and diplomats
than is vouchsafed by the terms of the treaty; but it is not to be
inferred that this is always the case.
Treaties are sometimes intended to last forever (_in perpetuo_), and
sometimes they are concluded for only a term of years. Political
treaties, the purposes of which is usually to terminate wars, establish
boundaries, award indemnities, etc., naturally belong, as a rule, to the
first class, while commercial treaties usually have a time limit. This
accounts for a good many of the blank spaces in the above synopsis.
It will be noticed that there are some countries in the above list which
have not at present the treaty making power—such, for instance, as
Egypt, the Hanseatic Republic, Prussia, Hawaii, Samoa, Madagascar,
Borneo, Kongo Free State, etc. In such cases the government which
assumes the sovereignty assumes the treaty obligations, or else
concludes new ones.
It may be noticed, on the other hand, that there are no commercial
treaties with either Mexico, Brazil, Uruguay or Chile. This does not
mean that there are no political treaties with those countries, or that
there never have been any commercial treaties, but merely that in some
cases the latter have been allowed to lapse or have been abrogated, and
no new ones have been concluded. Canada, Australia, India, and all other
colonies have no sovereignty, and therefore are not states in
international law. Hence they cannot appoint or receive ambassadors nor
can they make treaties except through the sovereign power.
DIPLOMATIC SERVICE
To What Country Name and Rank.
Accredited.
Argentine Republic William P. Lord, E. E. & M. P.
Francois S. Jones, Sec. of Leg.
Austria-Hungary Addison C. Harris, E. E. & M. P.
Charles V. Herdliska, Sec. of Leg.
Com’d’r W. H. Beehler, Nav. Att.
Belgium Lawrence Townsend, E. E. & M. P.
Bolivia George H. Bridgman, E. E. & M. P.
Brazil Charles Page Bryan, E. E. & M. P.
Thomas C. Dawson, Sec. of Leg.
Chile Henry L. Wilson, E. E. & M. P.
Henry J. Lenderink, Sec. of Leg.
China Edwin H. Conger, E. E. & M. P.
Herbert G. Squiers,[DS1] Sec. of Leg.
Wm. E. Bainbridge, 2d Sec. of Leg.
Lt. Albert L. Key, Nav. Att.
Fleming D. Cheshire, Int.
Colombia Charles Burdett Hart, E. E. & M. P.
Arthur M. Beaupre, Sec. of Leg. & C. G.
Costa Rica William L. Merry, E. E. & M. P.[DS2]
Rufus A. Lane, Sec. of Leg.
Denmark Laurits S. Swenson, E. E. & M. P.
Lt. Col. W. R. Livermore, Mil. Att.
Dominican Republic William F. Powell, Chargé d’Affaires.
Ecuador Archibald J. Sampson, E. E. & M. P.
Egypt John G. Long, Agt. & C. G.
France Horace Porter, Amb. E. & P.
Henry Vignaud, Sec. of Emb.
Spencer F. Eddy, 2d Sec. of Emb.
Samuel Morrill, 3d Sec. of Emb.
Lt. William S. Sims, Nav. Att.
Germany Andrew D. White, Amb. E. & P.
John B. Jackson, Sec. of Emb.
Geo. M. Fisk, 2d Sec. of Emb.
H. Percival Dodge, 3d Sec. of Emb.
Com’d’r W. H. Beehler, Nav. Att.
Great Britain Joseph H. Choate, Amb. E. & P.
Henry White, Sec. of Emb.
John R. Carter, 2d Sec. of Emb.
Jos. H. Choate, Jr., 3d Sec. of Emb.
Lt. Com’d’r John C. Colwell, Nav. Att.
Col. Samuel S. Sumner, Mil. Att.
Greece Arthur S. Hardy, E. E. & M. P.[DS3]
Guatemala W. Godfrey Hunter (n), E. E. & M. P.[DS4]
James C. McNally (n), Sec. of Leg. & C. G.
Haiti William F. Powell, E. E. & M. P.[DS5]
Honduras W. Godfrey Hunter (n), E. E. & M. P.[DS6]
Italy Wm. F. Draper, Amb. E. & P.
Lewis M. Iddings, Sec. of Emb.
R. C. Parsons, Jr., 2d Sec. of Emb.
Com’d’r W. H. Beehler, Nav. Att.
Japan Alfred E. Buck, E. E. & M. P.
J. R. Herod, Sec. of Leg.
Huntington Wilson, 2d Sec. of Leg.
Lt. Albert Key, Nav. Att.
Ransford Stevens Miller, Jr., Int.
Korea Horace N. Allen, Min. Res. & C. G.
Edwin V. Morgan, Sec. of Leg.
Pang Kyeng Hui, Int.
Kwon Yu Sup, Int.
Libera Owen L. W. Smith, Min. Res. & C. G.
James Robt. Spurgeon, Sec. of Leg.
Mexico Powell Clayton, Amb. E. & P.
Fenton R. McCreery, Sec. of Leg.
William Heimke (n), 2d Sec. of Leg.
Netherlands Stanford Newel, E. E. & M. P.
Lt. Col. James N. Wheelan, Mil. Att.
Nicaragua William L. Merry, E. E. & M. P.[DS7]
Rufus A. Lane, Sec. of Leg.
Paraguay William R. Finch, E. E. & M. P.[DS8]
Persia Herbert W. Bowen, Min. Res. & C. G.
John Tyler, Int.
Peru Irving B. Dudley, E. E. & M. P.
Richard R. Neill, Sec. of Leg.
Portugal John N. Irwin, E. E. & M. P.
Capt. S. L’H. Slocum, Mil. Att.
Roumania Arthur S. Hardy, E. E. & M. P.[DS9]
Russia Charlemagne Tower, Amb. E. & P.
Herbert H. D. Peirce, Sec. of Emb.
Herbert J. Hagerman, 2d Sec. of Emb.
Lt. William S. Sims, Nav. Att.
Salvador William L. Merry, E. E. & M. P.[DS10]
Rufus A. Lane, Sec. of Leg.
Servia Arthur S. Hardy, E. E. & M. P.[DS11]
Siam Hamilton King (n), Min. Res. & C. G.
James A. Chivers, Int.
Spain Bellamy Storer, E. E. & M. P.
Stanton Stickles,[DS12] Sec. of Leg.
Sweden and Norway William W. Thomas, Jr., E. E. & M. P.
Lt. Col. W. R. Livermore, Mil. Att.
Switzerland John G. A. Leishman, E. E. & M. P.
Capt. George R. Cecil, Mil. Att.
Turkey Oscar S. Straus (n), E. E. & M. P.
Lloyd C. Griscom, Sec. of Leg.
A. A. Gargiulo, Int.
Uruguay William R. Finch, E. E. & M. P.[DS13]
Venezuela Francis B. Loomis, E. E. & M. P.
W. W. Russell, Sec. of Leg.
EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS.
E. E. & M. P., Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary.
Sec. of Leg., Secretary of Legation.
Sec. of Emb., Secretary of Embassy.
Nav. Att., Naval Attache.
Int., Interpreter.
C. G., Consul General.
Mil. Att., Military Attache.
Amb. E. & P., Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary.
Min. Res., Minister Resident.
Agt., Agent.
The letter (n) indicates that the officer is a naturalized citizen, and
the letter (b) that he is authorized to transact business.
-----
Footnote DS1:
Born of American parents temporarily residing abroad.
Footnote DS2:
Accredited also to Nicaragua and Salvador.
Footnote DS3:
Accredited also to Roumania and Servia.
Footnote DS4:
Accredited also to Honduras.
Footnote DS5:
Also Chargé d’Affaires to the Dominican Republic.
Footnote DS6:
Accredited also to Guatemala.
Footnote DS7:
Accredited also to Costa Rica and Salvador.
Footnote DS8:
Accredited also to Uruguay.
Footnote DS9:
Accredited also to Greece and Servia.
Footnote DS10:
Accredited also to Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
Footnote DS11:
Accredited also to Greece and Roumania.
Footnote DS12:
Born in the legation at Madrid when his father was Minister to Spain.
Footnote DS13:
Accredited also to Paraguay.
CONSULAR SERVICE.
Place. Name and Title.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
Buenos Ayres Daniel Mayer (n)[CS1] C.
Do George H. Newbery V. C.
Bahia Blanca Walter T. Jones Agt.
Cordoba (b) John M. Thome V. C.
Rosario (b) James M. Ayers C.
Do Charles H. Doherty V. & D. C.
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.
Budapest, Hungary (b) Frank Dyer Chester C.
Do Louis Gerster (n) V. & D. C.
Fiume Agt.
Prague, Austria Hugo Donzelmann (n) C.
Do Emil Kubinzky V. C.
Reickenberg, Austria Frank W. Mahin[CS1] C.
Do Stefan Wagner V. & D. C.
Haida Frank Siller (n) Agt.
Trieste, Austria Frederick W. Hossfeld (n) C.
Do Felician Slataper (n) V. C.
Vienna, Austria Carl Bailey Hurst[CS2] C. G.
Do Alvesto S. Hogue V. & D. C. G.
Brunn Gustavus Schoeller Agt.
Innsbruck August Bargehr (n) Agt.
BELGIUM.
Antwerp George F. Lincoln C. G.
Do Stanislas H. Haine V. & D. C. G.
Do Francis E. Vouillon D. C. G.
Brussels George W. Roosevelt C.
Do Gregory Phelan V. & D. C.
Charleroi J. Fisher Reese Agt.
Ghent Richard Le Bert[CS1] C.
Do Julius A. Van Hee V. & D. C.
Liege Alfred A. Winslow[CS1] C.
Do John Gross V. & D. C.
Verviers Henry Dodt Agt.
BOLIVIA.
La Paz (b) Gerardo Zalles V. C.
BRAZIL.
Bahia Henry W. Furniss[CS1] C.
Do Louis G. Mackay V. C.
Aracaju Luiz Schmidt Agt.
Para Kavanaugh K. C.
Kenneday[CS1]
Do Julius F. Hiedeman V. & D. C.
Manaos John C. Redman Agt.
Maranhao Luiz F. da S. Santos (n) Agt.
Pernambuco Edwin N. Gunsaulus[CS1] C.
Do John Krause V. C.
Ceara Antonio E. da Frota Agt.
Maceio Charles Goble Agt.
Natal Apollonio Barroca Agt.
Rio de Janeiro Eugene Seeger (n) C. G.
Do Will Leonard Lowrie V. & D. C. G.
Do Wolff Havelburg D. C. G.
Victoria Jean Zinze Agt.
Santos Max J. Baehr (n) C.
Do V. C.
Do Ulrico Christiansen D. C.
Rio Grande do Sul Jorge Vereker Agt.
CHILE.
Antofagasta (b) Charles C. Greene C.
Arica (b) John W. Lutz C.
Do David Simpson V. C.
Iquique (b) Joseph W. Merriam C.
Do Maximo Rosenstock V. C.
Valparaiso John F. Caples C.
Valparaiso August Moller, Jr. V. C.
Caldera John C. Morong Agt.
Coquimbo Andrew Kerr Agt.
Coronel J. Henry Downs Agt.
Punta Arenas Moritz Braun Agt.
Talcanuano John O. Smith Agt.
CHINA.
Amoy Anson Burlingame Johnson C.
Do Carl Johnson V. C.
Do Carl Johnson Mar.
Do Li Ung Bing Int.
Canton Robert M. McWade (n) C.
Do Hubbard T. Smith V. C.
Do Hubbard T. Smith C. C.
Do Frank R. Mowrer Mar.
Do Tsin Ching Chung Int.
Chefoo John Fowler C.
Do Henry A. C. Emery[CS2] V. & D. C.
Do Henry A. C. Emery[CS2] Int.
Chinkiang William Martin (n) C.
Do V. C.
Do George E. Sevey Mar.
Do Wan Bing Chung Int.
Chungking George F. Smithers[CS2] C.
Do Spencer Lewis V. C.
Do William Tseng Laisun Int.
Fuchau Samuel L. Gracey C.
Do Wilbur T. Gracey V. C.
Do Wilbur T. Gracey Mar.
Do Thomas Ling Int.
Hankau Levi S. Wilcox C.
Do V. C.
Do Int.
Do George E. Reed Mar.
Niuchwang (b) J. J. Fred. Bandinel V. & D. C.
Shanghai John Goodnow C. G.
Do V. C. G.
Shanghai Arthur H. White D. C. G.
Do George A. Derby Mar.
Do Stephen P. Barchet (n) Int.
Tientsin James W. Ragsdale C.
Do Sylvester G. Hill V. C.
Do Bertrand Ragsdale Mar.
Do Int.
COLOMBIA.
Barranquilla W. Irvin Shaw[CS1] C.
Do Elias P. Pellet V. & D. C.
Santa Marta Gerardo M. Danies Agt.
Bogota Arthur M. Beaupre [CS3]C. G.
Do Benito Zalamea V. C. G.
Bucaramanga Gustave Volkman Agt.
Cali William A. Barney Agt.
Cucuta Philip Tillinghast, Jr. Agt.
Honda Henry Hallam Agt.
Cartagena (b) Rafael Madrigal (n) C.
Do Augustus T. Hanabergh (n) V. C.
Quibdo Henry G. Granger Agt.
Colon William W. Cobbs C.
Do T. S. Flournoy Cobbs V. & D. C.
Bocas del Toro David R. Hand Agt.
Medellin (b) Thomas Herran C.
Do Walter C. Mann V. C.
Panama Hezekiah A. Gudger C. G.
Do Francis A. Gudger V. & D. C. G.
COSTA RICA.
San Jose John C. Caldwell C.
Do Charles S. Caldwell V. C.
Port Limon Richard H. Gadd Agt.
Punta Arenas Henry G. Morgan Agt.
DENMARK AND DOMINIONS.
Copenhagen John C. Ingersoll[CS1] C.
Do V. & D. C.
St. Thomas, W. I. Mahlon Van Horne[CS1] C.
St. Thomas, W. I. Julius C. Lorentzen V. C.
Christiansted, St. Andrew J. Blackwood Agt.
Croix Island
Fredericksted, St. William F. Moore Agt.
Croix Island
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC.
Puerto Plata (b) Thomas Simpson C.
Do Arthur W. Lithgow V. C.
Monte Christi Isaac T. Petit Agt.
Samana (b) Jean M. Villain V. C. A.
Santo Domingo Campbell L. Maxwell C. G.
Do Juan A. Read V. C.
Azua John Hardy Agt.
Macoris Edward C. Reed Agt.
Sanchez Jose A. Puente (n) Agt.
ECUADOR.
Guayaquil Perry M. De Leon C. G.
Do Martin Reinberg (n) V. C. G.
Bahia de Caraquez Carlos A. Naht Agt.
Esmeraldas Ferdinand Servat (n) Agt.
Manta Pedro A. Moreira Agt.
FRANCE AND DOMINIONS.
Algiers, Africa (b) Daniel S. Kidder C.
Do Louis L. Legembre V. & D. C.
Beni-saf E. L. G. Milsom Agt.
Bone Antoine Felix Garbe Agt.
Oran Benjamin A. Courcelle Agt.
Bordeaux Albion W. Tourgee C.
Do V. C.
Do James L. Chassereau D. C.
Calais James B. Milner[CS1] C.
Do V. C.
Boulogne-sur-mer William Hale Agt.
Goree-Dakar, Africa (b) Peter Strickland C.
Do V. C.
Grenoble George B. Anderson C.
Do Thomas W. Murton V. C.
Guadeloupe Island W. I. Louis H. Ayme C.
Do Charles Bartlett V. & D. C.
Havre Alexander M. Thackara C.
Do John Preston Beecher V. & D. C.
Cherbourg Henry J. E. Hainneville Agt.
Honfleur Henry M. Hardy Agt.
Rennes Ernest Folliard Agt.
St. Malo Raymond Moulton Agt.
La Rochelle George H. Jackson C.
Do Judd B. Hastings V. & D. C.
Cognac Elisee Jouard (n) Agt.
Limoges Walter T. Griffin C. A.
Do Auguste Jouhannaud V. C. A.
Lyons John C. Covert[CS1] C.
Do Thomas Nicoll Browne V. & D. C.
Dijon Ernest Bourette Agt.
Marseilles Robert P. Skinner[CS1] C.
Do Robert K. Fast V. & D. C.
Bastia, Corsica Simon Damiani (n) Agt.
Cette Lorenz S. Nahmens Agt.
Toulon Benjamin A. Jouve Agt.
Martinique, W. I. Alonzo C. Yates C.
Do Amedee Testart V. C.
Nantes Joseph I. Brittain[CS1] C.
Do Hiram D. Bennett V. C.
Angers Jules Henri Luneau Agt.
Brest A. Pitel Agt.
Lorient Leon Deprez Agt.
St. Nazaire Thomas Sankey Agt.
Nice Harold S. Van Buren[CS1] C.
Do Attilio Piatti V. C.
Cannes Philip T. Riddett Agt.
Mentone Achille Isnard Agt.
Monaco Emile de Loth Agt.
Paris John K. Gowdy C. G.
Paris Edward P. MacLean V. & D. C. G.
Do J. Allison Bowen D. C. G.
Do Edward P. MacLean C. C.
Do J. Allison Bowen C. C.
Rheims William A. Prickitt[CS1] C.
Do John T. Crossley V. C.
Troyes Gaston Baltet Agt.
Roubaix William P. Atwell C.
Do Gaston Thiery V. C.
Do Alfred C. Harrison D. C.
Caudry Hans Dietiker Agt.
Dunkirk Benjamin Morel Agt.
Lille C. Dubois Gregoire Agt.
Rouen (b) Thomas T. Prentis C.
Do E. M. J. Dellepiane V. C.
Dieppe Raoul le Bourgeois Agt.
Saigon, Cochin China (b) Edward Schneegans C. A.
Do Lauritz L. Stang V. C. A.
St. Etienne Hilary S. Brunot[CS1] C.
Do Hastings Burroughs V. & D. C.
St. Pierre, St. Pierre Charles M. Freeman C. A.
Island (b)
Do George H. Frecker V. C. A.
Tahiti, Society Islands Jacob L. Doty C.
(b)
Do John Hart (n) V. C.
Tamatave, Madagascar Mifflin W. Gibbs[CS1] C.
Do William H. Hunt V. C.
Tunis, Africa (b) C.
Do Alfred Chapelie V. C.
GERMANY.
Aix la Chapelle Frank M. Brundage[CS1] C.
Do Gordon Scott V. & D. C.
Annaberg John F. Winter C.
Do Franz M. Jaeger V. & D. C.
Eibenstock Ernest L. Harris Agt.
Bamberg Louis Stern (n) C. A.
Do Albert Kiessling V. C. A.
Barmen Max Bouchsein (n) C.
Do John A. Rittershaus (n) V. & D. C.
Berlin Frank H. Mason C. G.
Do Dean B. Mason V. & D. C. G.
Do Frederick von Versen (n) D. C. G.
Do Dean B. Mason C. C.
Sorau William B. Murphy Agt.
Bremen Henry W. Diederich C.
Do V. & D. C.
Brake and Nordenhamm Wilhelm Clemens Agt.
Bremerhaven-Geestemunde John H. Schnabel Agt.
Breslau Charles W. Erdman (n) C.
Do Neander Alexander V. C.
Brunswick Talbot J. Albert[CS1] C.
Do Julius Seckel V. & D. C.
Chemnitz James C. Monaghan C.
Do Joseph F. Monaghan V. C.
Coburg Oliver J. D. Hughes (n) C.
Do Alvin Florschutz V. & D. C.
Sonneberg Verne E. Joy Agt.
Cologne John A. Barnes C.
Do Charles E. Barnes V. & D. C.
Crefeld Julian Phelps[CS1] C.
Do William P. Phelps V. D. C.
Do Charles L. Cole C. G.
Dresden Alfred C. Johnson V. C. G.
Do Hernando de Soto[CS4] D. C. G.
Dusseldorf Peter Lieber (n) C.
Do Emil Hoette V. C.
Essen F. Asthorver, Jr. Agt.
Frankfort Richard Guenther (n) C. G.
Do S. W. Hanauer (n) V. C. G.
Do Charles P. Vaughn D. C. G.
Cassel Gustav C. Kothe (n) Agt.
Langen Schwalbach Ernest Grebert Agt.
Freiburg, Baden E. Theophilus C.
Liefeld[CS1]
Do Benjamin F. Liefeld V. & D. C.
Glauchau George Sawter C.
Do Alfred Neubert V. & D. C.
Hamburg Hugh Pitcairn[CS1] C.
Do E. H. L. Mummenhoff V. & D. C.
Do Otto W. Hellmrich D. C.
Kiel Paul H. J. Sartori Agt.
Lubeck Jacob Meyer, Jr. Agt.
Ritzebuttel and Johann G. F. Starke Agt.
Cuxhaven
Hanover Jay White C.
Do Kirke Lathrop V. & D. C.
Kehl Alexander Wood C.
Do Max Adler (n) V. & D. C.
Leipzig Brainard H. Warner, C.
Jr.[CS1]
Do Frederick Nachod V. & D. C.
Do Rudolph Fricke D. C.
Gera Charles Neuer Agt.
Magdeburg C.
Do George H. Murphy V. & D. C.
Do George H. Murphy C. C.
Mainz Walter Schumann[CS1] C.
Do Walter Hausing V. & D. C.
Mannheim Heaton W. Harris[CS1] C.
Do Peter J. Osterhaus (n) V. & D. C.
Neustadt Leopold Blum Agt.
Munich James H. Worman (n) C.
Do V. & D. C.
Augsburg G. Oberndorf (n) Agt.
Nuremberg Gustave C. E. Weber (n) C.
Do Sigmund Dunkelsbuhler V. C.
Do Oscar Bock D. C.
Plauen Thomas Willing Peters C.
Do William F. L. Fiedler V. &. D. C.
Markneukirchen Oscar Malmros (n) Agt.
Solingen Edmund Z. Brodowski (n) C.
Do Max Brab V. C.
Stettin (b) John E. Kehl[CS1] C.
Do Henry Harder V. & D. C.
Danzig Philipp Albrecht Agt.
Konigsberg Alexander Eckhardt (n) Agt.
Swinemunde Gustav Ludwig Agt.
Stuttgart Edward H. Ozmun[CS1] C.
Do William Hahn (n) V. & D. C.
Weimar Thomas Ewing Moore C.
Do Paul Teichmann V. & D. C.
Zittau William K. Herzog C.
(n)[CS1]
Do Rudolph Konecke V. C.
GREAT BRITAIN AND DOMINIONS.
Aden, Arabia (b) Edwin S. Cunningham[CS1] C.
Do William H. Lockerman V. C.
Hodeida Vittorio Cremasche Agt.
Amherstburg, Ont. Chester W. Martin[CS1] C.
Do Franklin A. Hough V. & D. C.
Antigua, W. I. Henry M. Hunt (n)[CS1] C.
Do Samuel Galbraith V. C.
Montserrat Richard Hannam Agt.
Roseau, Dominica Henry A. Frampton Agt.
Auckland, N. Z. (b) Frank Dillingham[CS1] C.
Do Leonard A. Bachelder V. C.
Christ Church Robert Pitcaithly Agt.
Dunedin W. G. Neill Agt.
Monganui Robert Wyles Agt.
Wellington John Duncan Agt.
Barbados, W. I. Samuel A. C.
Macallister[CS1]
Do Arthur B. St. Hill V. C.
St. Lucia William Peter Agt.
St. Vincent Ernest A. Richards Agt.
Bathurst, Africa, (b) Henry Goddard V. C.
Belfast, Ireland William W. Touvelle C.
Do Malcolm T. Brice V & D. C.
Ballymena John G. Ballentine Agt.
Londonderry P. T. Rodger Agt.
Lurgan F. W. Magahan Agt.
Belize, Honduras William L. Avery[CS1] C.
Do Christopher Hempstead V. & D. C.
Belleville, Ont. (b) Michael J. Hendrick C.
Do William N. Ponton V. C.
Deseronto Charles A. Milliner Agt.
Napanee William Templeton Agt.
Picton Jacob F. Beringer Agt.
Trenton Stephen J. Young Agt.
Birmingham, England Marshal Halstead[CS1] C.
Do Frederick M. Burton V. C.
Do Ernest Harker D. C.
Kidderminster James Morton Agt.
Redditch H. C. Browning Agt.
Wolverhampton John Neve Agt.
Bombay, India William T. Fee C.
Do Charles F. Meyer V. C.
Karachi Alfred H. R. Armstrong Agt.
Bradford, England Erastus Sheldon Day C.
Do Thomas L. Renton V. & D. C.
Do Richard B. Nicholls D. C.
Bristol, England Lorin A. Lathrop C.
Do Gerard Mosely V. & D. C.
Gloucester Arnold Henry Palin Agt.
Brockville, Ont. Charles W. Merriman[CS1] C.
Do William W. Wood V. & D. C.
Calcutta, India Robert F. Patterson C. G.
Do Samuel Comfort V. & D. C. G.
Akyab Charles Findlay Agt.
Bassein Agt.
Chitagong R. A. Mactaggart Agt.
Madras William H. Nichols Agt.
Moulmein W. J. Davidson Agt.
Rangoon John Young Agt.
Campbellton, N. B. (b) James S. Benedict C. A.
Campbellton, N. B. Charles Murray V. C. A.
Bathurst Benedict C. Mullins Agt.
Cape Town, Cape of Good James G. Stowe C. G.
Hope
Do Clifford H. Knight V. & D. C. G.
Durban Alexander H. Rennie Agt.
East London William H. Fuller Agt.
Kimberley Gardner Williams Agt.
Port Elizabeth John A. Chabaud Agt.
Cardiff, Wales Daniel T. Phillips C.
(n)[CS1]
Do Ernest L. Phillips V. & D. C.
Newport William E. Heard Agt.
Ceylon (Island) William Morey C.
Do Elmer Lake Morey[CS2] V. & D. C.
Point de Galle Emil Bretscher Agt.
Charlottetown, Prince Delmar J. Vail[CS1] C.
Edward Island
Do John T. Crockett V. & D. C.
Alberton Albert Glidden Agt.
Georgetown Archibald J. McDonald Agt.
Souris Caleb C. Carlton Agt.
Summerside Richard Hunt Agt.
Chatham, Ont. Charles E. Montieth[CS1] C.
Do William Gordon V. C.
Chaudiere Junction, James M. Rosse C. A.
Quebec (b)
Coaticook, Quebec Jesse H. Johnson[CS1] C.
Do Ernest John Astell V. & D. C.
Hereford John R. Nichols Agt.
Lineboro Hoel S. Beebe Agt.
Potton Chandler Bailey Agt.
Stanstead Benjamin F. Butterfield Agt.
Collingwood, Ont. William Small (n) C.
Do Charles Macdonell V. & D. C.
Barrie Alfred E. H. Creswicke Agt.
Owen Sound William T. Robertson Agt.
Parry Sound Walter R. Foot Agt.
Wiarton J. H. Tibeando Agt.
Cork (Queenstown) Daniel Swiney (n)[CS1] C.
Do James William Scott V. C.
Do Cecil Piatt D. C.
Waterford William H. Farrell Agt.
Dawson City, Yukon James C. McCook (n) C.
Territory
Do Ronald Morrison (n) V. C.
Do John E. Doherty D. C.
Demerara, Guiana George H. Moulton C.
Do Gustav H. Richter (n) V. C.
Cayenne Edouard A. L. Lalanne Agt.
Paramaribo Arthur Deyo Agt.
Dublin, Ireland Joshua Wilbour[CS1] C.
Do Arthur Donn Piatt V. & D. C.
Athlone John Burgess Agt.
Limerick Edmund Ludlow Agt.
Dundee, Scotland John C. Higgins[CS1] C.
Do Allan Baxter V. & D. C.
Aberdeen Andrew Murray Agt.
Dunfermline, Scotland John N. McCunn (n)[CS1] C.
Do Charles Drysdale V. C.
Kirkcaldy Andrew Innes Agt.
Edinburgh, Scotland Rufus Fleming[CS1] C.
Do Frederick P. Piatt V. & D. C.
Galashiels John Stalker Agt.
Falmouth, England (b) Howard Fox C.
Do G. Henry Fox V. & D. C.
Scilly Islands John Banfield, Jr. Agt.
Fort Erie, Ont. Ossian Bedell C.
Do John V. Bedell V. & D. C.
Gaspe Basin Quebec (b) Almar F. Dickson C.
Do John Carter V. C.
Paspebiac Daniel Bisson Agt.
Gibraltar, Spain Horatio J. Sprague[CS2] C.
Do Richard L. Sprague[CS2] V. & D. C.
Glasgow, Scotland Samuel M. Taylor C.
Do William Gibson V. C.
Do John McFadzean D. C.
Greenock James A. Love Agt.
Troon Peter H. Waddell Agt.
Goderich, Ont. Robert S. Chilton C. A.
Do William Campbell V. C. A.
Clinton A. O. Pattison Agt.
Guelph, Ont. Charles N. Daly C.
Do George A. Oxnard V. & D. C.
Halifax, N. S. John G. Foster C. G.
Do George Hill V. & D. C. G.
Bridgewater William H. Owen Agt.
Liverpool Jason M. Mack Agt.
Lunenburg Daniel M. Owen Agt.
Hamilton, Bermuda W. Maxwell Greene[CS1] C.
Do James B. Heyl V. & D. C.
Hamilton, Ont. James M. Shepard[CS1] C.
Do Richard Butler V. & D. C.
Brantford Arthur C. Hardy Agt.
Galt James Ryerson Agt.
Paris William W. Hume Agt.
Hobart, Tasmania (b) Alexander George Webster C.
Do Charles Ernest Webster V. C.
Launceston Lindsay Tullock Agt.
Hongkong, China Rounsevelle Wildman C. G.
Do V. & D. C. G.
Do Chin Poy Woo Int.
Huddersfield, England Benjamin F. Stone[CS1] C.
Do David J. Bailey V. & D. C.
Hull, England William P. Smyth (n) C.
Do Arthur W. Benton V. C.
Kingston, Jamaica Ethelbert Watts C.
Do John S. Twells V. & D. C.
Black River C. M. Farquharson Agt.
Falmouth Charles A. Nunes Agt.
Montego Bay G. L. P. Corinaldi Agt.
Port Maria Ruben R. Baker Agt.
Port Morant Lorenzo D. Baker, Jr. Agt.
St. Ann’s Bay R. W. Harris Agt.
Savannah-la-Mar Ch. S. Farquharson Agt.
Kingston, Ont. Marshall H. Twitchell C.
Do Matthew H. Folger V. & D. C.
Leeds, England Lewis Dextert[CS1] C.
Do William Ward V. C.
Do Edmund Ward D. C.
Liverpool, England James Boyle (n) C.
Do William J. Sulis V. & D. C.
Do William Pierce D. C.
Holyhead Richard D. Roberts Agt.
St. Helen’s John Hammill Agt.
London, England William M. Osborne C. G.
Do Richard Westacott V. & D. C. G.
Do Francis W. Frigout D. C. G.
Do Richard Westacott C. C.
Dover Francis W. Prescott Agt.
London, Ont. Henry S. Culver[CS1] C.
Do Robert Reid, Jr. V. & D. C.
Malta (Island) John H. Grout, Jr. C.
Do Joseph F. Balbi V. C.
Manchester, England William F. Grinnell C.
Do Ernest J. Bridgford V. C.
Melbourne, Australia John P. Bray C. G.
Do Thos W. Stanford V. & D. C. G.
Adelaide Charles A. Murphy Agt.
Albany Frank R. Dymes Agt.
Freemantle Alfred D. Allan Agt.
Moncton, N. B. (b) Gustave Beutelspacher C. A.
(n)[CS1]
Do Edward A. Reilly V. & D. C. A.
Newcastle Robert R. Call Agt.
Richibucto George V. McInerney Agt.
Montreal, Quebec John L. Bittinger C. G.
Do Patrick Gorman V. & D. C. G.
Coteau Thomas Stapleton Agt.
Grenville Alex. Pridham Agt.
Hemmingford Wellington W. Wark Agt.
Huntingdon John Dineen Agt.
Morrisburg, Ont. John E. Hamilton[CS1] C. A.
Do George F. Bradfield V. & D. C. A.
Cornwall David A. Flack Agt.
Nassau, N. P. Thomas J. McLain C.
Do Alfred E. Moseley V. C.
Albert Town Jose G. Maura Agt.
Dunmore Town Norman E. B. Munro Agt.
Governor’s Harbor Abner W. Griffin Agt.
Green Turtle Cay Edward W. Bethel Agt.
Mathewtown Daniel D. Sargent Agt.
Newcastle-on-Tyne, Horace W. Metcalf C.
England
Do Hetherington Nixon V. & D. C.
Carlisle Thomas S. Strong Agt.
Sunderland Thomas A. Horan Agt.
West Hartlepool Hans C. Nielsen Agt.
Newcastle, New South Frederic W. Goding[CS1] C.
Wales (b)
Do Stewart Keightley V. & D. C.
Brisbane, Queensland William J. Weatherill Agt.
Townsville John Henry Rogers Agt.
Niagara Falls, Ont. Harlan W. Brush C.
Do Ernest Stanley Fraser V. & D. C.
St. Catharines Leonard H. Collard Agt.
Nottingham, England Silas C. McFarland[CS1] C.
Do William T. Cartwright V. C.
Derby Charles K. Eddowes Agt.
Leicester Samuel S. Partridge Agt.
Orilla, Ont. (b) Ernest A. Wakefield[CS1] C. A.
Do Robert H. Jupp V. & D. C. A.
North Bay, Nipissing Daniel J. McKeown Agt.
Sudbury William P. Martin Agt.
Waubaushene Ronald F. White Agt.
Ottawa, Ont. Charles E. Turner C. G.
Do Horace M. Sanford V. & D. C. G.
Arnprior Charles H. Sawyer Agt.
Plymouth, Eng. (b) Joseph G. Stephens (n) C.
Do John J. Stephens V. & D. C.
Dartmouth Jasper Bartlett Agt.
Guernsey William Carey Agt.
Jersey E. B. Renouf Agt.
Port Antonio, Jamaica (b) Nicholas R. Snyder[CS1] C. A.
Do Daniel H. Jackson V. & D. C. A.
Port Hope, Ont. Harry P. Dill C. A.
Do John Harcourt V. & D. C. A.
Lindsay James M. Knowlson Agt.
Peterborough Frank J. Bell Agt.
Port Louis, Mauritius John P. Campbell (n) C.
Do A. Povah Ambrose V. C.
Port Rowan, Ont. (b) George B. Killmaster (n) C. A.
Do William H. Meek V. C. A.
Port Sarnia, Ont. Neal McMillan (n)[CS1] C.
Do Richard W. Chester V. & D. C.
Port Stanley, F. I. John E. Rowen[CS1] C.
Do James Smith V. C.
Prescott, Ont. Grenville James C.
Do James Buckly V. & D. C.
Quebec William W. Henry[CS1] C.
Do Frank S. Stocking V. C.
Rimouski, Que. (b) Charles A. C. A.
Boardman[CS1][CS2]
Do Joseph A. Talbot V. & D. C. A.
St. Christopher, West Joseph Haven C. A.
Indies (b)
Do Emile S. Delisle V. C. A.
Nevis Charles C. Greaves Agt.
St. George’s, Bermuda (b) Edward T. Jenkins C. A.
Do William D. Fox V. C. A.
St. Helena (Island) Robert P. Pooley (n) C.
Do V. C.
St. Hyacinthe, Quebec Joseph M. Authier (n) C. A.
Do Francis Bartels V. & D. C. A.
Sorel Isaie Sylvestre Agt.
Waterloo Arthur S. Newell Agt.
St. John, N. B. Ira B. Myers[CS1] C.
Do V. & D. C.
Campobello Island John I. Alexander (n) Agt.
Fredericton James T. Sharkey Agt.
Grand Manan William A. Fraser Agt.
St. George Edward Milliken Agt.
St. John’s, N. F. Martin J. Carter C.
Do Henry F. Bradshaw C.
St. John’s, Quebec Charles Deal[CS1] C.
Do John Donaghy V. & D. C.
Farnham William L. Hibbard Agt.
Lacolle Henry Hoyle Agt.
St. Stephen, N. B. Charles A. C.
McCullough[CS1]
Do Charlie N. Vroom V. & D. C.
St. Andrews George H. Stickney Agt.
St. Thomas, Ontario Michael J. Burke (n)[CS1] C.
Do William H. King V. & D. C.
Courtright Fred W. Baby Agt.
Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. George W. Shotts[CS1] C. A.
(b)
Do Alex. R. Flockhart V. C. A.
Sheffield, England James Johnston (n)[CS1] C.
Do Frank M. Clark V. & D. C.
Barnsley Robert D. Maddison Agt.
Sherbrooke, Quebec Paul Lang[CS1] C.
Do George E. Borlase V. & D. C.
Cookshire William F. Given Agt.
Megantic Henry W. Albro Agt.
Sierra Leone, Africa. John T. Williams[CS1] C.
Do James A. L. Trice V. C.
Singapore, S. S. Robert A. Moseley, Jr. C. G.
Do A. B. S. Moseley V. & D. C. G.
Penang Otto Schule Agt.
Southampton, Eng. John E. Hopley[CS1] C.
Do Richard Jones (n) V. & D. C.
Do Joseph W. Hopley D. C.
Portsmouth William Joseph Main Agt.
Weymouth Alfred Charles Higgs Agt.
Stanbridge, Que. (b) Felix S. S. Johnson C. A.
Do Geo. M. Hastings V. & D. C. A.
Clarenceville Edmund Macomber Agt.
Frelighsburg William A. Reynolds Agt.
Sutton James E. Ireland Agt.
Stratford, Ont. Augustus G. Seyfert[CS1] C.
Do William S. Dingman V. & D. C.
Palmerston Richard A. Shea Agt.
Suva, Fiji Islands (b) Alexander B. Joske C. A.
Swansea, Wales Griffith W. Prees C.
(n)[CS1]
Do William D. Rees V. & D. C.
Llanelly William Bowen Agt.
Milford Haven George S. Kelway Agt.
Sydney, N. S. George N. West C.
Do John E. Burchell V. C.
Arichat Stanage Binet Agt.
Cape Canso Alfred W. Hart Agt.
Louisburg Henry C. V. Le Vatte Agt.
Pictou John R. Davies Agt.
Port Hawksbury and Alexander Bain Agt.
Mulgrave
Pugwash and Wallace Conrad W. Morris Agt.
Sydney, N. S. W. George W. Bell C.
Do Richard F. O’Rourke V. C.
Do William H. Dawson D. C.
Norfolk Island Isaac Robinson Agt.
Three Rivers, Que. Urbain J. Ledoux[CS1] C.
Three Rivers, Que. Waters W. Braman, Jr. V. C.
Arthabaska Arthur Poitras Agt.
Toronto, Ont. William L. Sewell[CS1] C.
Do Raymond L. Sewell V. & D. C.
Oshawa W. P. Stericker Agt.
Trinidad, W. I. Alvin Smith[CS1] C.
Do V. C.
Grenada P. J. Dean Agt.
Scarborough, Tobago Edward Keens Agt.
Tunstall, England William Harrison Bradley C.
Do John H. Copestake V. & D. C.
Turks Island, W. I. (b) C.
Do W. Stanley Jones V. C.
Cockburn Harbor Cleophas Hunt Durham Agt.
Salt Cay Daniel F. Harriott Agt.
Vancouver, B. C. L. Edwin Dudley[CS1] C.
Do Fred’k J. Schofield V. & D. C.
Cumberland George W. Clinton Agt.
Rossland John Jackson, Jr. (n) Agt.
Victoria, B. C. Abraham E. Smith (n)[CS1] C.
Do Benjamin A. Hunter V. & D. C.
Chemainus James S. Gibson Agt.
Nanaimo George S. Schetky Agt.
Nelson William P. Kenibbs Agt.
Wallaceburgh, Ont. Isaac G. Worden C. A.
Do Charles B. Jackson V. & D. C. A.
Windsor, N. S. (b) Joseph T. Hoke[CS1] C.
Do John Nalder V. & D. C.
Cheverie John G. Burgess Agt.
Kingsport Arthur F. Borden Agt.
Parrsboro Laurence H. Hoke Agt.
River Hebert William Moffat Agt.
Windsor, Ont. Hugh C. Morris[CS1] C.
Do John M. Little V. & D. C.
Winnipeg, Manitoba William H. H. Graham[CS1] C.
Do William Hall (n) V. & D. C.
Deloraine Albert M. Herron Agt.
Emerson Duncan McArthur Agt.
Fort William, Ont. C. W. Jarvis Agt.
Gretna Enoch Winkler Agt.
Lethbridge, Alberta Frederick W. Downer (n) Agt.
North Portal, W. H. Dorsey Agt.
Assiniboia
Rat Portage, Ont. G. Clayton Frisbie Agt.
Woodstock, N. B. Frank C. Denison[CS1] C.
Do John Graham V. C.
Edmunston J. Adolphe Guy Agt.
Yarmouth, N. S. Radcliffe H. Ford C.
Do Ernest H. Armstrong V. & D. C.
Annapolis Jacob M. Owen Agt.
Barrington Thomas W. Robertson Agt.
Digby William B. Stewart Agt.
Shelburne T. Howland White Agt.
GREECE.
Athens Daniel E. McGinley[CS1] C.
Do Louis Nicolaides V. C.
Piroeus Marino T. Sourmely Agt.
Patras (b) George L. Darte C.
Do Demetrius E. Maximos V. C.
GUATEMALA.
Guatemala James C. McNally (n) [CS3]C. G.
Do W. G. Hunter, Jr. V. & D. C. G.
Champerico Pedro A. Bruni Agt.
Livingston Frank C. Dennis Agt.
Ocos Samuel Wolford Agt.
Quezaltenango Grant A. Morrill Agt.
San Jose de Guatemala Upton Lorentz Agt.
HAITI.
Cape Haitien (b) Lemuel W. Livingston[CS1] C.
Do Theodore Behrmann V. C.
Gonaives J. William Woel (n) Agt.
Port de Paix Carl Abegg Agt.
Port au Prince (b) John B. Terres V. C. G.
Do Alexander Battiste D. C.
Aux Cayes Henry E. Roberts Agt.
Jacmel Jean B. Vital Agt.
Jeremie L. Trebaud Rouzier (n) Agt.
Miragoane Agt.
Petit Goave L. Kampmeyer Agt.
St. Marc Charles Miot Agt.
HAWAII.
Honolulu William Haywood C. G.
Do W. Porter Boyd V. & D. C. G.
Do W. Porter Boyd C. C.
HONDURAS.
Tegucigalpa Frederick H. Allison[CS1] C.
Do George Bernhard V. C.
Amapala William Heyden Agt.
Ceiba Virgil C. Reynolds Agt.
Nacaome John E. Foster Agt.
Puerto Cortez William E. Alger Agt.
San Juancito E. E. Dickason Agt.
San Pedro Sula J. M. Mitchell, Jr. Agt.
Truxillo John T. Glynn Agt.
Utilla (b) Benjamin Johnston[CS1] C.
Do Robert Woodville V. C.
Bonacca William Bayly (n) Agt.
Ruatan William C. Wildt Agt.
ITALY.
Castellamare di Stabia Joseph E. Hayden C. A.
Do R. O’N. Wickersham V. & D. C. A.
Sorrento Thomas Spencer Jerome Agt.
Catania Alexander C.
Heingartner[CS1]
Do Jacob Ritter V. & D. C.
Florence Edward C. Cramer[CS1] C.
Do Spirito Bernardi V. & D. C.
Bologna Carlo Gardini Agt.
Genoa James Fletcher (n) C.
Do Federico Scerni V. C.
Do E. V. Dobrilovich D. C.
San Remo Albert Ameglio Agt.
Leghorn James A. Smith[CS1] C.
Do Emilio Masi V. & D. C.
Carrara Ulisse Boccacci Agt.
Messina Charles M. Caughy C.
Do Letterio Pirrone V. & D. C.
Reggio, Calabria Carlo Celesti Agt.
Milan William Jarvis[CS1] C.
Do Lorenzo Frette V. & D. C.
Naples A. Homer Byington[CS1] C.
Do Richard F. St. Leger V. &. D. C.
Bari Nicholas Schuck Agt.
Rodi Tomaso del Giudice Agt.
Palermo Church Howe[CS1] C.
Do Felix Pirandello V. C.
Do Giovanni Paterniti D. C.
Carini Francesco Crocchiolo Agt.
Girgenti Francis Ciotta Agt.
Licata Arthur Verderame Agt.
Trapani Costantino Serraino Agt.
Rome Hector de Castro C. G.
Do Charles M. Wood V. & D. C. G.
Do Charles M. Wood C. C.
Ancona A. P. Tomassini Agt.
Cagliari Alphonse Dol Agt.
Civita Vecchia Gustav Marsanick Agt.
Turin (b) Percy McElrath C.
Do Hugo Pizzotti V. C.
Venice Henry A. Johnson C.
Do Frederick Rechsteiner V. & D. C.
JAPAN.
Nagasaki Charles B. Harris C.
Do Epperson R. Fulkerson V. C.
Do William Henry S. Gleason Int.
Osaka and Hiogo (Kobe) Samuel S. Lyon C.
Do V. & D. C.
Do W. Ebiharah Int.
Tamsui, Formosa James W. Davidson C.
Do A. Norris Wilkinson V. C.
Yokohama John F. Gowey C. G.
Do John McLean (n) V. & D. C. G.
Do George H. Scidmore D. C. G.
Do George H. Scidmore C. C.
Do John McLean (n) Int.
KOREA.
Seoul Horace N. Allen [B]C. G.
Do V. & D. C. G.
LIBERIA.
Monrovia Owen L. Smith [CS5]C. G.
Do Beverly Y. Pane V. C. G.
MASKAT.
Maskat (b) C.
Do Archibald Mackirdy V. C.
Do Mahomed Fazel D. C.
MEXICO.
Acapulco George W. Dickinson[CS1] C.
Do Edgar Battle V. C.
Chihuahua (b) William W. Mills[CS1] C.
Do Charles Lee Curtis V. & D. C.
Parral James J. Long Agt.
Ciudad Juarez Charles W. Kindrick[CS1] C.
Do Charles E. Wesche (n) V. & D. C.
Ciudad Porfirio Diaz Charles P. Snyder[CS1] C.
Do Alban G. Snyder V. & D. C.
Sierra Mojada Henry B. Hackley Agt.
Durango (b) Walter H. Faulkner C.
Do V. & D. C.
Torreon Louis E. Stern Agt.
Ensenada (b) C.
Do Harry K. Taylor V. C.
La Paz (b) C.
Do James Viosca, Jr. V. C.
Magdalena Bay Agt.
San Jose Abraham Kurnitzky Agt.
Matamoros P. Merrill Griffith[CS1] C.
Do J. Bielenberg (n) V. C.
Mier Henry Vizcayo Agt.
Mazatlan Louis Kaiser (n) C.
Do Gustavus A. Kaiser (n ) V. & D. C.
Mexico Andrew D. Barlow C. G.
Do James R. Hardy (n) V. & D. C. G.
Aguas Calientes Alfred M. Raphall Agt.
Guadalajara Edward B. Light Agt.
Guanajuato Dwight Furness Agt.
Oaxaca Charles H. Arthur Agt.
Puebla William Headen (n) Agt.
Zacatecas Edmund von Gehren Agt.
Monterey Philip C. Hanna C. G.
Do Philip Carroll V. & D. C. G.
Victoria William J. Storms Agt.
Nogales James F. Darnall[CS1] C.
Do Albert R. Morawetz V. & D. C.
Guaymas Frank M. Crocker Agt.
Nuevo Laredo Robert Butler Mahone[CS1] C.
Do V. & D. C.
Progreso Edward H. Thompson C.
Campeche Rafael Preciat Agt.
Laguna de Terminos German Hahn (n) Agt.
Saltillo (b) Charles Burr Towle C.
Do V. C.
Tampico Samuel E. Magill C.
Do Neill E. Pressly V. C.
San Luis Potosi John H. Farwell Agt.
Tuxpan (b) C.
Do Edwin R. Wells V. C.
Veracruz William W. Canada C.
Do Jose Gonzales Pages V. C.
Coatzacoalcos Walter K. Linscott Agt.
Frontera Agt.
MOROCCO.
Tangier Samuel R. Gummere[CS1] C. G.
Do Albert Martinsen V. & D. C. G.
Casa Blanca John Cobb Agt.
Mogador George Broome Agt.
NETHERLANDS AND DOMINIONS.
Amsterdam Frank D. Hill C.
Do Albertus Vinke V. & D. C.
Batavia, Java (b) Sidney B. Everett[CS1] C.
Do Bradstreet S. Rairden V. & D. C.
Macassar, Celebes Karl Auer Agt.
Padang, Sumatra Hinrich J. P. Haacke Agt.
Samarang B. Caulfield-Stoker Agt.
Soerabaya Benjamin N. Powell Agt.
Curacao, W. I. Elias H. Cheney C.
Do Jacob Wuister V. C.
Buen Ayre Gottlob W. Hellmund Agt.
Rotterdam Soren Listoe C.
Do A. H. Voorwinden (n) V. & D. C.
Flushing Pieter F. Auer Agt.
Schiedam Ernest A. Man Agt.
St. Martin, W. I. (b) Diederic C. van Romondt C.
Do W. F. C. L. A. Netherwood V. C.
St. Eustatius J. G. C. Every Agt.
NICARAGUA.
Managua Chester Donaldson[CS1] C.
Do Arthur O. Wallace V. C.
Corinto Henry Palazio Agt.
Matagalpa Isaac A. Manning Agt.
San Juan del Sur Charles Holmann Agt.
San Juan del Norte William B. Sorsby C.
Do F. Percy Scott[CS6] V. C.
Bluefields Philip E. Coyle Agt.
PARAGUAY.
Asuncion John N. Ruffin[CS1] C.
Do William Harrison V. C.
PERSIA.
Teheran Herbert W. Bowen [CS5]C. G.
Teheran John Tyler V. C. G.
PERU.
Callao William B. Dickey C.
Do William S. McBride V. C.
Chiclayo Theodore Stechmann Agt.
Mollendo Enrique Meier Agt.
Paita Agt.
Tumbez William Baldini Agt.
PORTUGAL AND DOMINIONS.
Funchal, Madeira Thomas C. Jones C.
Do William J. G. Reid V. & D. C.
Lisbon (b) Jacob H. Thieriot C.
Do John B. Wilbor V. C.
Brava, C. V. I. Joao J. Nunes Agt.
Faro F. J. Tavares Agt.
Loanda, Africa Agt.
Oporto William Stuve Agt.
St. Vincent, C. V. I. J. B. Guimaraes Agt.
Setubal John P. T. O’Neill Agt.
Lourenco Marquez W. Stanley Hollis C.
Do James McIntosh V. C.
Beira A. Lewis Kidd Agt.
St. Michael’s, Azores George H. Pickerell[CS1] C.
Do Wm. W. Nicholls (n) V. & D. C.
Fayal Moyses Benarus Agt.
Flores James Mackay Agt.
San Jorge Joaquin J. Cardozo Agt.
Terceira Henrique de Castro Agt.
ROUMANIA.
Bucharest Wm. G. Boxshall V. C. G.
RUSSIA.
Batum (b) James C. Chambers C.
Do V. C.
Helsingfors (b) C.
Do Victor Ek V. C.
Abo Victor Forselius Agt.
Wiborg C. Edwin Ekstrom Agt.
Moscow (b) Thomas Smith [A]C.
Do Samuel Smith V. C.
Odessa Thomas E. Heenan C.
Do V. C.
Rostoff and Taganrog William R. Martin Act’g Agt.
Riga (b) Niels P. A. Bornholdt C.
Do V. C.
St. Petersburg William R. Holloway C. G.
Do Wm. A. Heydecker[CS2] V. & D. C. G.
Cronstadt Peter Wigius Agt.
Libau Hugo Smit Agt.
Revel Edmund von Glehn Agt.
Vladivostock Richard T. Greener C. A.
Warsaw (b) Joseph Rawicz C.
Do V. C.
SALVADOR.
San Salvador John Jenkins (n)[CS1] C.
Do Benjamin Baruch V. C.
Acajutia John Stuart Agt.
La Libertad Alfred Cooper Agt.
La Union Samuel F. Lord Agt.
SAMOA.
Apia Luther W. Osborn [CS7]C. G.
Do William Blacklock V. C. G.
SERVIA.
Belgrade V. C. G.
SIAM.
Bangkok Hamilton King (n) [CS5]C. G.
Do Lawrence E. Bennett V. C. G.
SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC.
Pretoria Adelbert S. Hay C.
Do Emil A. van Ameringen V. C.
Bloemfontein, Orange Alfred Elliott Agt.
Free State
Johannesburg William D. Gordon Agt.
SPAIN AND DOMINIONS.
Alicante (b) C.
Do Henry W. Carey V. C.
Barcelona Julius G. Lay C. G.
Do H. Henderson Rider V. & D. C. G.
Bilbao Carlos Yensen Agt.
San Feliu de Guixols Francis Esteva (n) Agt.
Tarragona Louis J. Agostini (n) Agt.
Cadiz John Howell Carroll C.
Algeciras Agt.
Huelva John A. Parkinson Agt.
Jeres de la Frontera Claes L. Nilson Agt.
Port St Mary’s George M. Daniel Agt.
Seville Samuel B. Caldwell Agt.
Carthagena (b) Joseph Bowron C.
Do Reginald W. Barrington V. C.
Corunna (b) Julio Harmony[CS2] C.
Do V. C.
Madrid (b) Dwight T. Reed V. C.
Malaga Richard M. Bartleman C.
Do Thomas R. Geary V. C.
Almeria Malaga Algar E. Carleton Agt.
Valencia Horace L. Washington C.
Do A. H. S. Troughton V. & D. C.
Denia Joseph R. Morand Agt.
Teneriffe, Canary Isl. Solomon Berliner C.
(b)
Do Robert C. Griffiths C.
Grand Canary Peter Swanston Agt.
La Palma Manuel Yanes Agt.
SWEDEN AND NORWAY.
Bergen, Norway (b) Victor E. Nelson (n)[CS1] C.
Do V. C.
Drontheim Claus Berg Agt.
Stavanger Chr. Fr. Falck Agt.
Tromso Richard Killengren Agt.
Christiania, Norway (b) Henry Bordewich (n)[CS1] C.
Do Lauritz F. Bronn V. C.
Arendal Christian Eyde Agt.
Christiansand Berne Reinhardt Agt.
Gothenburg, Sweden Robert S. S. Bergh (n) C.
Do Paul Berghaus V. & D. C.
Helsingborg Lars Virgin Agt.
Malmo Peter M. Flensburg Agt.
Stockholm, Sweden Edward D. Winslow C. G.
Do Axel Georgii V. C. G.
Do Carl P. Gerell D. C. G.
Sundsvall Victor Svensson Agt.
SWITZERLAND.
Aarau Henry H. Morgan C.
Do Remigius Sauerlander V. & D. C.
Lucerne Julius Hartmann Agt.
Basel George Gifford C.
Do Samuel Hollinger V. & D. C.
Berne Adolph L. Frankenthal C.
(n)[CS1]
Do Emil David (n) V. & D. C.
Chaux de-Fonds Henry Rieckel, Jr. Agt.
Geneva Benjamin H. Ridgely C.
Do Louis H. Munier V. & D. C.
Vevey William Cuenod Agt.
St. Gall James T. DuBois C. G.
Do Joseph Simon (n) V. & D. C. G.
Zurich Adam Lieberknecht (n) C.
Do William A. Steinmann V. & D. C.
Winterthur Heinrich Langsdorf Agt.
TONGA.
Nukualofa Luther W. Osborn [CS8]C. G.
TURKEY AND DOMINIONS.
Alexandretta William Ross Davis[CS1] C.
Do Walter F. Walker V. C.
Aleppo Frederick Poche Agt.
Mersine Richard Viterbo (n) Agt.
Bagdad (b) C.
Do Rudolph Hurner V. C.
Bassorah James Hamilton Agt.
Beirut, Syria Gabriel Bie Ravndal C.
(n)[CS1]
Do William C. Magelssen V. & D. C.
Damascus Nasif Meshaka Agt.
Haifa Gottleib Schumacher Agt.
Cairo, Egypt John G. Long [CS9]C. G.
Do William Dulany Hunter V. C. G.
Do William Dulany Hunter D. C. G.
Do William Dulany Hunter C. C.
Alexandria James Hewat Agt.
Assioot Bestauros W. Khayat Agt.
Keneh Abdel K. M. el Ammari Agt.
Luxor Aly Mourad Agt.
Mansourah Ibrahim Daoud Agt.
Port Said Samuel G. Broadbent Agt.
Suez Alfred W. Haydn Agt.
Constantinople Charles M. Dickinson C. G.
Do William Albert V. C. G.
Do Frank L. Duley D. C. G.
Do Frank L. Duley Mar.
Do Thomas O. Morton Int.
Do St. Leger A. Touhay (n) C. C.
Dardanelles Frank Calvert Agt.
Salonica Pericles H. Lazzaro Agt.
Erzerum Leo Bergholz C.
Do Vital Ojalvo (n) V. C.
Trebizond H. Z. Longworth Agt.
Harput C.
Jerusalem, Syria Selah Merrill C.
Do Herbert E. Clark V. C.
Yafa E. Hardegg Agt.
Sivas Milo A. Jewett[CS2] C.
Do V. & D. C.
Samsoun G. C. Stephopoulo Agt.
Smyrna Rufus W. Lane[CS1] C.
Do Frank D. Brooks V. C.
Mytilene Michael M. Fottion Agt.
URUGUAY.
Colonia (b) Benjamin D. Manton C.
Do Garrett T. Ryan V. C.
Montevideo Albert W. Swalm C.
Do Thomas W. Howard V. C.
Paysandu (b) John G. Hufnagel (n) C. A.
Do George A. Hufnagel V. C. A.
VENEZUELA.
La Guayra Louis Goldschmidt C.
(n)[CS1]
Do V. C.
Barcelona Ignacio H. Baiz Agt.
Caracas Frederick De Sola (n) Agt.
Carupano Juan A. Orsini Agt.
Ciudad Bolivar Robert Henderson Agt.
Cumana Jose G. N. Romberg Agt.
Maracaibo Engene H. Plumacher (n) C.
Do Emilio MacGregor V. C.
Coro Josiah L. Senior Agt.
San Cristobal Alexander Boue Agt.
Tovar Wilhelm J. H. Muche Agt.
Valera Agt.
Puerto Cabello Luther T. Ellsworth[CS1] C.
Do William H. Volkmar V. C.
Valencia Otto H. Becker Agt.
ZANZIBAR.
Zanzibar Robert E. Mansfield[CS1] C.
Do Seth A. Pratt V. C.
EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS.
C., Consul.
V. C., Vice Consul.
Agt., Agent.
V. & D. C., Vice and Deputy Consul.
V. & D. C. G., Vice and Deputy Consul General.
C. G., Consul General.
D. C. G., Deputy Consul General.
V. C. G., Vice Consul General.
C. A., Commercial Agent.
V. C. A., Vice Commercial Agent.
Mar., Marshal.
Int., Interpreter.
C. C., Consular Clerk.
The letter (n) indicates that the officer is a naturalized citizen, and
the letter (b) that he is authorized to transact business.
-----
Footnote CS1:
Appointed after examination under Executive order of September 20,
1895.
Footnote CS2:
Born of American parents temporarily residing abroad.
Footnote CS3:
The Consul General is also Secretary of Legation.
Footnote CS4:
Born of American parents residing abroad.
Footnote CS5:
The Consul General is also Minister Resident.
Footnote CS6:
Born of American parents.
Footnote CS7:
Also Consul General at Nukualofa, Tonga, but he resides at Apia.
Footnote CS8:
Also Consul General at Apia, Samoa, at which place he resides.
Footnote CS9:
The Consul General is also Diplomatic Agent.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Uncle Sam Abroad" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.